[BobBob]

A topic that I often think about, and that has been much discussed in this forum, is the possibility of large and very significant improvements in the way our city functions, which can be achieved with little or no capital expenditure.

For instance, I feel that urban life in this city could see a big improvement if the city eased restrictions on, or actually promoted, laneway housing.

Beautification and utilization of the Gardiner's underbelly could also radically change the vast areas around that highway if we got creative with it.

Electrification of GO would involve obvious costs, but could be an enormous boon to the city by transforming the lines radiating from Union into something more similar to subways, in frequency and reliability.

So, I thought I'd start this thread to ask you: If you were mayor, and had to choose one significant city-changing endeavor as your legacy, but were strapped for cash, what would it be? What would be the biggest bang-for-our -buck city-building push?

 

[Jdot]

GO is provincial territory (though the city does pay for some of it). As far as I know, they are electrifying it (at least the Lakeshore line). Is electrifying a correct word?

Beautifying the under belly of the Gardiner would cost money, but doesnt have to. I think the city dropped the ball a bit with Concord. They should have required the developer to extend the linear park and Central Park to include the space under teh Gardiner. It could have been a Section 37 requirement for less parking spaces, or increased height/density etc. I belive the city finally wised up and made them clean up a section adjacent to Panorama, but the entire stretch along CityPlace should have been spruced up on the developers dime.

The same could have been a requirement of the condos going up around Fort York Neighbourhood. The city could foot the bill for a redesign of the intersections under the Gardiner (improved lighting, improved pedestrian sidewalks on BOTH sides of the n/s roads etc) while the developers foot the bill for the space between the n/s roads.

 

[unimaginative2]

I think the city should have forced Cityplace/Concord to deck over the rail corridor, at least from Peter to as far west of Spadina as possible. They could build condos over it if they wanted.

 

[BobBob]

^ That would indeed have been major. Are there any issues with putting freight with diesel engines underground?

Nevertheless, it's encouraging that we'll probably be getting at least 3 new pedestrian crossings over the tracks in the west-of-downtown area in the next few years: from the foot of Portland St, the tunnel in Liberty Village and the bridge in that Queen West Triangle condo...

 

[Mike in TO]

I think the city should have forced Cityplace/Concord to deck over the rail corridor, at least from Peter to as far west of Spadina as possible. They could build condos over it if they wanted.

That is a CNR issue, the City of Toronto doesn't have any jurisdiction over the railways nor the ability to "force" Concord into that kind of scheme.

 

[CDL.TO]

That is a CNR issue, the City of Toronto doesn't have any jurisdiction over the railways nor the ability to "force" Concord into that kind of scheme.

The rail corridor is owned by GO, a provincial agency. The City of Toronto could have stipulated it as part of their approval for such a massive project, but in all fairness the City was probably happy to be getting any development at all back when Cityplace was first proposed.

So, perhaps "forced" isn't technically right, but "negotiated while refusing to take no as an answer" could have been possible.

 

[TrickyRicky]

There isn't any one initiative I can speak to but my main concern would be shaking up the culture. We speak about money all the time but I actually don't think funding or money is as important an obstacle as we think. Money flows naturally to sources of success because people want to be associated with success and money is nothing more than the currency of this aspiration. We need to take a hard look at how we do things and stress that it is the deliverable or objective that needs to move forward. There is too much emphasis on procedure, too much of a litigative mindset and a reluctance to realize the potential of new ideas. Whenever new ideas are proposed or implemented we alway have to re-invent the wheel. If our city or any city for that matter would just open its eyes to the best practices and lessons learned in other jursidictions there would be clear paths to illustrate how to move forward. For the large part we and other cities as well fail to capitalize on this wealth of information.

 

[unimaginative2]

That is a CNR issue, the City of Toronto doesn't have any jurisdiction over the railways nor the ability to "force" Concord into that kind of scheme.

The rail corridor is owned by GO, which is a provincial government agency. The city absolutely had the ability to force Concord into such a scheme. The Cityplace property was owned by Canada Lands, a federal government agency. The city masterplanned the area and had a large list of requirements that any developer meet, including specific parks, day cares, the school, the community centre, and other amenities. There's absolutely no reason why the same process could not have required overbuilding the rail corridor.

 

[Hipster Duck]

My list:

1. Dump the OMB
2. Revise the fire code to reduce the width of streets and allow the construction of laneway housing
3. Mandate LEED silver on all new buildings
4. Institute electronic tolls on the Gardiner, DVP and Allen Rd
5. Build the Eglinton LRT as planned
6. Finish the Sheppard subway from STC to Downsview
7. Electrify the Lakeshore GO as far as Niagara Falls and add another electrified high capacity line to Kitchener via Pearson-Brampton-Guelph
8. Kill the required parking necessities for condo units, allowing developers to build multi-unit housing with no resident parking
9. Remove on-street parking from one side of select streets to allow for large, European style two-way bike lanes with their own signals
10. Expand green bin program to apartments
11. Slap a carbon tax on vehicle purchases

 

[urbandreamer]

^Number 11 could create this scenario: no car dealerships in Toronto! Everyone buys their cars in Oshawa, K-W, etc. Not very effective imho.

 

[junctionist]

It would work only if the neighbouring municipalities agreed to have the same tax, but can they do that? When it's a car, it's usually not hard to drive your old one to a neighbouring municipality to find what you're looking for.

 

[Hipster Duck]

Ok, slap a carbon tax on new vehicle registrations.

 

[allabootmatt]

One improvement, and a big pet peeve: bury the !(&!(#& hydro wires, and put in attractive lights instead. Time to join the 20th century. Probably the single most dramatic thing that could be done for the city aesthetically.

 

[Zephyr]

Time to join the 20th century.

Aren't we in the 21st century?

 

[3Dementia]

^ I think he was right in the first place.