[drum118]

What does "deal with traffic" mean? Please explain. Are you referring to the pedestrian traffic? Because with more people walking to work rather than driving from suburbs foot traffic will increase. The solution to a lack of schools, if there is one, is to build a school. Why are you making this so complicated?

It means both pedestrian and vehicle traffic.

King St is a traffic gridlock at peak time as well at night time to the point it will take up to 20 minutes to go from University to Spadina.

By rights anything these days for new buildings in the core, parking must be 0-25% of the units in the building. If you need a car, rent one like I do.

Transit as it is now, is poor and that is caused by traffic along the route.

Left hand turning is the biggest problem as few cars can only make a turn if they can on a green and have the right to do so.

Pedestrian traffic impedes the turning of vehicles traffic regardless which way. More feet traffic will put more pressure on intersections with small sidewalk as well for traffic.

Because of the increase of residents with children, there is a lack of space in schools for these new residents let alone if a school exist in the area in the first place. City Place is a good example at this time for schools.

The width of sidewalks become an issue to the point there is no room for people. Good example is the south side of King St from John to Spadina because of all the patios that are there now that didn't exist when the sidewalks were first built. The only way to deal with that issue is to remove the on street parking and turn it over to wider sidewalks or sidewalk and a bike lane. We hear the issue surround removing parking, but at the end of the day it must happen.

Today traffic issue is caused by the suburb people both in Toronto and out side of it. On average, about 650 cars per hour per lane get though an intersection in the core at the best of times.

King St was to have an ROW for the streetcars, but the theater folks kill it. King is supposed to have an HOV lane at peak time, because it not enforce, it use as a normal lane.

Traffic is an issue for this area as well for other areas as there is "NO REAL TRANSIT SYSTEM IN PLACE" to get people in and out of the area fast enough.

 

[buildup]

It means both pedestrian and vehicle traffic.

King St is a traffic gridlock at peak time as well at night time to the point it will take up to 20 minutes to go from University to Spadina.

By rights anything these days for new buildings in the core, parking must be 0-25% of the units in the building. If you need a car, rent one like I do.

Transit as it is now, is poor and that is caused by traffic along the route.

Left hand turning is the biggest problem as few cars can only make a turn if they can on a green and have the right to do so.

Pedestrian traffic impedes the turning of vehicles traffic regardless which way. More feet traffic will put more pressure on intersections with small sidewalk as well for traffic.

Because of the increase of residents with children, there is a lack of space in schools for these new residents let alone if a school exist in the area in the first place. City Place is a good example at this time for schools.

The width of sidewalks become an issue to the point there is no room for people. Good example is the south side of King St from John to Spadina because of all the patios that are there now that didn't exist when the sidewalks were first built. The only way to deal with that issue is to remove the on street parking and turn it over to wider sidewalks or sidewalk and a bike lane. We hear the issue surround removing parking, but at the end of the day it must happen.

Today traffic issue is caused by the suburb people both in Toronto and out side of it. On average, about 650 cars per hour per lane get though an intersection in the core at the best of times.

King St was to have an ROW for the streetcars, but the theater folks kill it. King is supposed to have an HOV lane at peak time, because it not enforce, it use as a normal lane.

Traffic is an issue for this area as well for other areas as there is "NO REAL TRANSIT SYSTEM IN PLACE" to get people in and out of the area fast enough.

I don't think any of this is relevant to my comment.

 

[interchange42]

In my career, I've seen one too many city planners with a chip on their shoulder when dealing with developers. They're seen collectively as rich, greedy and evil. High density developments are seen as too much profit potential and must be paired down. I've also seen planners in smaller communities go out of their way to be uncooperative to harm and slow developers. What ends up happening is the cookie cutter homebuilders with deep pockets win their lawsuits while the small startup or innovative developer trying to do downtown infill or something else innovative gets put out of business.

It's ironic because these same planners complain about NIMBY community groups and tea party politicians trying to undermine the planning process. The plan for traditional main street designs and get frustrated when developers don't follow the plan. Often because they have no training or experience in land economics. The plans make for pretty renderings but never materialize.

I am pro development because I believe developers and well planned and thriving cities are not mutually exclusive. Had Toronto not been building 15,000 condo units a year, the population growth and jobs would be pushed to where supply is available, sprawl in the suburbs.

The generalizations cast a pall and would be difficult for you to defend even on a case-by-case basis. Sure there's the occasional bias that can affect thinking, but by-in-large planning here is policy driven, professional, and above-board.

In regards to why we are building 15,000 condo units a year, that's thanks to the greenbelt which has been in place around the city since 2005. That forward-looking piece of legislation under McGuinty was arguably the most important thing he accomplished as Premier. Relaxed zoning for the "Two Kings" under Mayor Barbara Hall, which allowed the revitalization of areas immediately east and west of Downtown Toronto, would be the other major kickstarting contributor to the resurgence of downtown living.

42

 

[innsertnamehere]

The Greenbelt / Places to Grow act has been a Christmas miracle for Toronto, and Hudaks willingness to just drop such a successful piece of legislation troubles me.

 

[maestro]

Investor driven market compounded by international recoginition as a safe haven has had a much larger effect on the increase in apartment buildings being built than the greenbelt.

There are some very large developers that manage to build thousands of units with little conflict or delay. There are others that see how far they can push the envelope before compromising on a plan. Then you have those that have no clue.

The unrelenting support and the vilifying of planners for the latter two in particular the initial, uncompromised plans expresses a fanaticism for tall, shiny towers but, a complete lack of understanding for the field they fantasize over.

They are confused over the benchmark from which their visions of Toronto are produced. Manhattan has very strict zoning policy for height and density. 35% of the city is untouchable due to heritage preservation. 75% of the 5000 highrises are 20 storeys or less.

 

[Big Daddy]

Villifying the planners isn't entirely fair. A Globe and Mail report indicated there are some 2,500 unfilled position at city hall - mostly due to aggressive cost cutting. With many of our upcoming politicians beating the "stop the gravy train" drum, this isn't likely to improve any time soon. There has to be a solution to this mess and if city hall can't or won't lead, they should get out of the way.

We all know the benefits of downtown intensification. Not building these buildings to wait for some future vision is a waste of time and nothing more that a wish for perfect guidance on issues that cannot be perfect. Clearly tall buildings belong downtown and it is far more likely much needed transit improvements, such as the DRL will get more attention if these projects are built. They won't build anything if we stop building and simply warn that the need is coming - tell them the need is now. TTC CEO Andy Byford spent time with the Prime Minister last Thursday pushing for help with the DRL. The PM was receptive. Now is not the time to stop or back down for fear of "pedestrian traffic" or car traffic that intensification might cause. We are on the right path.

And we should stop comparing Toronto with Manhattan - for now. Manhattan has far more density than Toronto. They built an extensive transit network in Manhattan to deal with the density. They would not have done so if all that density had been directed to the suburbs which is where potential residents will have to go if these condos aren't built.

 

[middeljohn]

Investor driven market compounded by international recoginition as a safe haven has had a much larger effect on the increase in apartment buildings being built than the greenbelt.

There's an overall North American trend of people moving back to their city cores. But you're underestimating the effect the greenbelt has had on high rise construction. No city in NA is experiencing a boom like Toronto is right now and we're the only one with a greenbelt.surrounding the metro area. That would indicate that there is a strong correlation between greenbelt and high rise construction.

In response to the gridlock/transit issue:

Yes, more people downtown means more traffic of all types. That's a good problem to have though. It's up to the city council (and the municipalities) to act and make the appropriate transit improvements. Even with the GO train, it's still a huge pain in the ass to get from the suburbs to downtown because there's barely any cheap parking left (don't get me wrong, that's a good thing). When I go downtown I park the car at Kipling and take the subway.

The DRL needs to get built pronto. I'd also like to see the GTA act like Metropolitan Toronto did to some extents. At least have all the bus systems joined together under one system. Still, these are good problems to have, indicative of a healthy and rapidly-growing city.

 

[fedplanner]

The generalizations cast a pall and would be difficult for you to defend even on a case-by-case basis. Sure there's the occasional bias that can affect thinking, but by-in-large planning here is policy driven, professional, and above-board.

In regards to why we are building 15,000 condo units a year, that's thanks to the greenbelt which has been in place around the city since 2005. That forward-looking piece of legislation under McGuinty was arguably the most important thing he accomplished as Premier. Relaxed zoning for the "Two Kings" under Mayor Barbara Hall, which allowed the revitalization of areas immediately east and west of Downtown Toronto, would be the other major kickstarting contributor to the resurgence of downtown living.

42

i42, you're right on all accounts, but hear me out. This is something I am very passionate about. I've never meet a planner that wasn't a good person and did what they b believe was right, but I've personally experienced everything I said above. Not all applicable to an individual case, but I have heard the occasional greedy developer promising something that exceeds existing zoning or be uncooperative and put up legal obstacles rather than being cooperative. An application for a big box Wal-Mart is treated very differently in some communities than an application for a big box Target, even though from a land use perspective they are exactly the same. Biases exist and old school thinking is still prevalent. 50 years ago this was the profession that swore that the only way to deal worth blight was to demolish the older portions of cities because it was believed everyone with the means would move to the suburbs and commute by car.

Things have improved since then, but there is still school of thoughts that are counter to creating healthy cities, and its this which upsets me most about the planning profession. In Toronto, I would say the planning departments reluctance to update zoning and instead rely on policies created in the late 70s is the most concern. Urban Toronto's interview with Kyle Rae speaks to this issue better than I could ever articulate.

The Kings and the Greenbelt are examples of good politics as well as good planning. The Greenbelt would not happen by planners alone, it took politicians with vision to being it to reality. Former Mayor Barbra Hall recognized issues with zoning in the Kings and was a strong supporter of the change.

More thoughts on this later..

 

[innsertnamehere]

Rae is now a teaches municipal politics at ryerson to first year planners, you will be happy to know.

 

[Gphorce]

I have a local politics class taught by Kyle Rae every Tuesday. His wealth of knowledge and his passion for a better Toronto is inspiring. If only he got the same visibility as Ford we would be living in a much better city, guaranteed.

 

[innsertnamehere]

I had him last semester.


Ford capitalized on his retirement party to help get elected by claiming it was gravy.

 

[interchange42]

i42, you're right on all accounts, but hear me out. This is something I am very passionate about. I've never meet a planner that wasn't a good person and did what they b believe was right, but I've personally experienced everything I said above. Not all applicable to an individual case, but I have heard the occasional greedy developer promising something that exceeds existing zoning or be uncooperative and put up legal obstacles rather than being cooperative. An application for a big box Wal-Mart is treated very differently in some communities than an application for a big box Target, even though from a land use perspective they are exactly the same. Biases exist and old school thinking is still prevalent. 50 years ago this was the profession that swore that the only way to deal worth blight was to demolish the older portions of cities because it was believed everyone with the means would move to the suburbs and commute by car.

Things have improved since then, but there is still school of thoughts that are counter to creating healthy cities, and its this which upsets me most about the planning profession. In Toronto, I would say the planning departments reluctance to update zoning and instead rely on policies created in the late 70s is the most concern. Urban Toronto's interview with Kyle Rae speaks to this issue better than I could ever articulate.

The Kings and the Greenbelt are examples of good politics as well as good planning. The Greenbelt would not happen by planners alone, it took politicians with vision to being it to reality. Former Mayor Barbara Hall recognized issues with zoning in the Kings and was a strong supporter of the change.

More thoughts on this later..

I wouldn't want to claim that no-one involved on the City's side may have ever let a bias influence them, but there's enough oversight of the process that gross abuses of the system would be impossible to conceal… or defend! In regards to updating zoning, my understanding is that reform has been fraught because no city councillor really wants to campaign on having upped densities everywhere in their last term (ignorant NIMBYs would have a field day), and and besides, the way it works now allows the City to bargain the extra density for public benefits. This way the campaigning incumbent councillor gets to brag "I extracted all these community benefits from the big bad developer". So, along with updating zoning for the higher densities and increased heights these days, the City would have to build in new measures designed to extract similar public benefits.

42

 

[fedplanner]

In regards to updating zoning, my understanding is that reform has been fraught because no city councillor really wants to campaign on having upped densities everywhere in their last term (ignorant NIMBYs would have a field day), and and besides, the way it works now allows the City to bargain the extra density for public benefits. This way the campaigning incumbent councillor gets to brag "I extracted all these community benefits from the big bad developer". So, along with updating zoning for the higher densities and increased heights these days, the City would have to build in new measures designed to extract similar public benefits.

42

The development industry would jump at the opportunity to streamline the Section 37 process. Right now it's almost like a crap shoot on the amount of extractions. It's not based on a formula, which adds another layer of uncertainty for developers going through the planning process. The guys operating http://www.section37.ca have done at documenting and analyzing the Section 37 extractions. It's a mess that the city needs to fix. The OMB will sometimes deny the city from seeking Section 37 payments for this reason. Hopefully the province will reform Section 37 to assure its based on a schedule, like planning and development charges. I would not be surprised if we hear more on this very soon...

I wouldn't want to claim that no-one involved on the City's side may have ever let a bias influence them, but there's enough oversight of the process that gross abuses of the system would be impossible to conceal… or defend!

I should have clarified that my earlier comments on planners were not directed towards Toronto. It was a conglomeration of life experiences packed into a rant. I think there is some misguided priorities within Toronto's planning department but nothing rising to the level of abuse. I must apologies because my rant wasn't clear on that at all.

Having said that, I think they're may be some angst within the Planning Department with the 1 Yonge Street application, since the city would have strongly preferred for Pinnacle to hold off on submitting an application until planning studies for the area can be completed. The planners have the city bylaws on their site, and are not doing anything wrong. I believe the OMB will look at this circumstance and take issue with the city's bylaws for these lands. 1 Yonge will proceed. I'm confident that it will.

 

[fedplanner]

Rae is now a teaches municipal politics at ryerson to first year planners, you will be happy to know.

I have a local politics class taught by Kyle Rae every Tuesday. His wealth of knowledge and his passion for a better Toronto is inspiring. If only he got the same visibility as Ford we would be living in a much better city, guaranteed.

Indeed! Hopefully he inspires a new generation of city builders.

 

[wmedia]

Lots of work going on in the retail units in One Yonge. New Starbucks is taking shape, and a new sandwich shop opening. The old convenience store has been gutted. Also a new Tim Hortons and dental office have opened up across the street. Not all earth shattering by any means, but great to see this once barren landscape slowly becoming a neighbourhood. I just hope a new bar takes the place of the old Harbour Sports Grille. That was a nice patio.