[aquateam]

I see what you're saying, at a general level, I just think you overthink it. I could argue (and many have) that the (lack of) intensification along most of the Danforth shows that subways can't do it on their own. .

The lack of intensification along Danforth has more to do with the fact that intensification is illegal than a lack of market demand. Zoning bylaws freeze neighbourhoods in time and insulate them from change, whether or not it would make sense to leverage existing infrastructure instead of building greenfield subdivisions on the fringe.

Of course they can't. you need jobs - and Vaughan (and indeed, much of Highway 7) has that. And you need the right policies and the right market. I think all those things, generally, are more transit-oriented in York Region now than they were in Toronto when the B-D line was built.

Given that 1) mode shares were generally better in the 1960s than now and 2) Toronto's transit mode share is an order of magnitude higher than York region's, I doubt that York is currently more transit oriented than Toronto's BD area was in 1964.

Comparing it to Rosedale, York Mills, or Danforth doesn't really work imo. The stretch through Rosedale was built in the 50s, it's an open trench, and it was our busiest surface route at the time. Danforth was built in the 60s, using cut/cover, was our first/second busiest surface route, and it was actually rather high-density at the time. York Mills/Wilson was also a busy surface route, and the TTC really tried to use a more affordable method involving a shallow tunnel and bridges. The decision to go with tunneling ultimately resulted in higher costs, higher maintenance, less stations, and was less optimal on all fronts.

Danforth was denser back then than it is now. Most Toronto neighbourhoods have seen depopulation. It's why the TDSB is struggling to maintain schools while new ones get constructed in the suburbs. Not contradicting anything you're saying, just thought it was interesting.

 

[Forgotten]

Yes, downtowns typically have things like hospitals and city halls but, obviously, this is a different kind of downtown. It's a relatively small area as opposed to an organic, historic downtown. A hospital would probably take up a lot of space and not generate much on transit. A city hall would generate even less. There's an argument to be made they should have gone in VMC anyway but I still think those would be more symbolic additions than practical contributions to the idea of a compact, mixed-use, transit-oriented community.

For some reason this guy thinks condos with a few thousand people + a couple of dry cleaners + a retail bank would do better than institutions with thousands of jobs would. Anything to rationalize bad decisions.

 

[TJ O'Pootertoot]

The lack of intensification along Danforth has more to do with the fact that intensification is illegal than a lack of market demand. Zoning bylaws freeze neighbourhoods in time and insulate them from change, whether or not it would make sense to leverage existing infrastructure instead of building greenfield subdivisions on the fringe.

This is almost, but not-quite-exactly, the opposite of what zoning by-laws do.
It is what residents seem to think zoning by-laws do. Landowners know otherwise.

In theory, there is nothing preventing me from buying a block of prime retail along the Danforth, filing an application to build a 15-storey tower and screaming PLACES TO GROW! at the top of my lungs until the OMB agrees with me. It's merely a question of money, will and time. Given the gentrification we're seeing out east on the Danforth I think it's only a matter of time until we start seeing more aggressive intensification projects.

You make a good point above harnessing infra vs. expanding on the fringe. When the subway was built, it was under Metro which had both those elements under its control. Now Toronto has only the former while the 905 has both infill and urban expansion, so the balance is out of wack without a single "regional" or "metro" government ensuring balance.

Given that 1) mode shares were generally better in the 1960s than now and 2) Toronto's transit mode share is an order of magnitude higher than York region's, I doubt that York is currently more transit oriented than Toronto's BD area was in 1964.

No question the context is different. But, again, that's a function of time as much as anything.
York Region (or, more to the point, Vaughan and Markham) are almost certainly more willing to allow major intensification along Yonge today than Toronto was along B-D in 1964. The challenge, as you rightly note, is that there's an established auto-oriented context all around that now.
It's not quite a paradox, but there's definitely a lot of forces and counter-forces acting upon one another.

For some reason this guy thinks condos with a few thousand people + a couple of dry cleaners + a retail bank would do better than institutions with thousands of jobs would. Anything to rationalize bad decisions.

Not at all what I said, but thanks for mistranslating. There are already lots of jobs around VMC, they're just in terrible, auto-oriented business parks. The question is, given the relatively limited land available in VMC, whether a hospital and/or city hall make sense. And I didn't say, "they don't," I said I can see both sides. A hospital/medical campus would bring jobs but I don't know how much bang for your buck you get in terms of trip generation and how much land it eats up. FYI, hospital lovers: the existing plan is over 50 acres. That's a HUGE chunk of a prospective downtown.

I think you get more civic symbolism but less trip generation with city hall. I kind of like the idea of having it there, having a civic square etc. but to reiterate what you apparently ignored, it's not a major job draw and because of the timing, it would be there NOW, situated among big box stores, without, on its own, stimulating intensification. There's value there, but it's hardly the no-brainer some people make it out to be.

 

[crs1026]

Until recently I would have said "built it (transit) and they (developers) will come", but a recent trip down Hurontario has convinced me otherwise. Both Brampton GO and Port Credit GO have attracted precious little development. The latter really amazes me since the Harbour has been prettied up, and GO service is excellent. Whereas the City Centre - which is best served by auto, to this point - has boomed. Transit is being retrofitted to Mississauga in many ways.

This says to me that the will of city hall does have some impact. Perhaps infill builds outwards from some critical mass. Vaughan has little of either. So I'm becoming less optimistic about the subway triggering a development boom.

The most promising selling point I can think of is, there are now plenty of people living up there who don't want to drive all the way downtown. So there may be a market for both jobs and liesure up there.

- Paul

 

[TOareaFan]

^I think the conclusion that is better drawn from the examples you give is that development will flow to areas that have a easily developable lands (ie. some vacant land ) and is accessible by, both, car and transit.

I have far more confidence in density arriving around the Vaughan subway stations than either DT Brampton or the part of Port Credit immediately around the GO station.

 

[sixrings]

only in the last few years has land beside transit really been seen as valuable. Most people previously would gladly pay less and be a long walk or bus ride away. However as the roads get worse and commutes get longer people are looking more and more to urban areas with transit. I would not necessarily look to the past in this case to predict the future. We are entering a brave new world.

 

[Transportfan]

The TTC at VCC addresses Woodbridge in particular (even if technically in Concord).

It's Edgeley actually. And Woodbridge and Concord don't have "technical" borders. Odd 905 hair-splitting vernacular to describe subway catchment areas that nobody would use in Toronto proper.

 

[salsa]

Well, I wrote above that I have mixed feelings about what the hospital and/or city hall would have brought to VMC; is CITY HALL a major trip generator? Mmmm, I doubt it. It's symbolic; though symbolism of not putting it in VMC is fair game.

A hospital would probably take up a lot of space and not generate much on transit. A city hall would generate even less.

It's not just about generating ridership. I see city hall as a missed opportunity to further kick-start redevelopment at VMC and create a great public space just like Mississauga has done with Celebration Square. A bunch of condos and a few office buildings are not gonna create a vibrant urban oasis that people will want to visit.

 

[TJ O'Pootertoot]

It's not just about generating ridership. I see city hall as a missed opportunity to further kick-start redevelopment at VMC and create a great public space just like Mississauga has done with Celebration Square. A bunch of condos and a few office buildings are not gonna create a vibrant urban oasis that people will want to visit.

Yeah, I don't necessarily disagree. Like I said, I think it would have been the smart symbolic thing to do. Say, "We're building this new downtown and y'all think it won't work but we're going to show you how much we care by building a true civic centre; we're going to be early adopters and show you how it's done." There's unquestionably value in that. I just think when you start breaking it down practically, looking at land costs and timing it makes less sense. But my heart agrees with you entirely.

(And, in fairness, they realize they know they need some sort of true destination there. They tried to get the York campus and, gulp, a casino. Some ideas are better than others, but they know condos aren't enough, is the point.)

only in the last few years has land beside transit really been seen as valuable. Most people previously would gladly pay less and be a long walk or bus ride away. However as the roads get worse and commutes get longer people are looking more and more to urban areas with transit. I would not necessarily look to the past in this case to predict the future. We are entering a brave new world.

I think that's only partly true. The recognition that land values are higher closer to transit is at least 50-60 years old...probably more like the 1920s or 30s; certainly at an academic level. I do agree that perhaps it's taken more time for "consumers" to register it. I think there's more awareness of the "hidden costs" of living in an auto-oriented suburb and rising commute times etc. have all contributed to that, especially in the GTA but it's certainly not news to landowners, developers etc.

 

[sixrings]

all im saying is there was a time when people just wanted to be close to a station now people will pay crazy amounts to live directly above or beside a station. both my properties have been above or beside and i paid a premium for it but we have only one car and very rarely do i think i would be happier with a bigger place farther from a station. my line of thinking was more or less rare in the past despite the premium costs but are becoming more and more a requirement of younger buyers.

 

[muller877]

This is almost, but not-quite-exactly, the opposite of what zoning by-laws do.
It is what residents seem to think zoning by-laws do. Landowners know otherwise.

In theory, there is nothing preventing me from buying a block of prime retail along the Danforth, filing an application to build a 15-storey tower and screaming PLACES TO GROW! at the top of my lungs until the OMB agrees with me. It's merely a question of money, will and time. Given the gentrification we're seeing out east on the Danforth I think it's only a matter of time until we start seeing more aggressive intensification projects..

Danforth has a bunch of small lots (including quite a few owner-operated). It's hard for developers to cobble together enough land to intensify. You probably need 4 or 5 separate purchases and one owner holding out or a long-term lease-holder can make it very prohibitive to buy the land.

And there is low-rise housing right behind. If you don't buy the low-rise housing to buy the entire block you will have to step it down from 10 stories on the Danforth to 5 at the back to prevent too many shadows. And even worse if there is a alley...you have to keep it open to neighbours so you can't even buy the house behind to make the lot deep enough to build on.

I don't have insider knowledge but my guess is there are some investors slowly cobbling together property and renewing leases so they all expire at the same time. But this is a 10+ year process.

Just look at the Bloor West site (west of Jane) that includes the cinema. There were only 2 or 3 owners and they still haven't eliminated all the leases (they are almost there!)

 

[44 North]

I think WislaHD summed it up: going the extra 2km is a lesser of evils and a pre-requisite for a line that was otherwise needed. It might not be an IDEAL decision but if we're ranking the LONG list of Stupid Toronto Transit Decisions, it might not even be Top 10. (I don't think Ford is the only pol to mess things up by a longshot, but he was probably the most brazen and deluded. And he's the most recent, obviously.)

QED: You say there aren't any existing residents but the almost-complete ExpoCity is bring 1,500 new residents (give or take) already. That's a good start.

Overall, I get the gist of your points 44North, but it doesn't much matter. I was comparing little-used Line 1 stations more to the Yonge extension than the Vaughan one but the larger point stands. I've seen here and elsewhere people taking pictures of Bessarion to show what a "disaster" Sheppard is but there are plenty of little-used stations on the lines that one could raise an eyebrow at. In the scheme of things, something like Yonge/7 or York U doesn't raise an eyebrow.

Yeah, maybe they could have done a trench (though the Allen is a travesty of planning and Yonge/Davisville isn't going under Black Creek, right?) but you also ignore that we're extending an existing subway which always makes a certain degree of sense. Overall, the whole planning process would work better, IMHO, if:
a) Decision power was given to a proper regional transit authority (Metrolinx does not yet qualify)
b) Funding was ongoing instead of piecemeal

Yes, downtowns typically have things like hospitals and city halls but, obviously, this is a different kind of downtown. It's a relatively small area as opposed to an organic, historic downtown. A hospital would probably take up a lot of space and not generate much on transit. A city hall would generate even less. There's an argument to be made they should have gone in VMC anyway but I still think those would be more symbolic additions than practical contributions to the idea of a compact, mixed-use, transit-oriented community.

As for GO, yes, it's in a bit of a deadzone between the 2 nearby lines. The planned Concord station would be pretty close to VMC, and easily linked by the planned 407 Transitway. At any rate, it's a different situation from Yonge/7 where you actually have a planned subway and GO terminal in the (nearly) exact same spot.

I'm aware VMC has a condo now, but I wrote no "pre-existing residents" (i.e nimbys that could stymie affordable infrastructure options). And the point still stands that there are no examples in TO where built such infrastructure so far from human habitation. Not by a long shot. Regardless, the overall point is cost. Whenever people posted photos of Bessarion, the takeaway was whether it was worth the astronomical cost - particularly when given our laundry list of priorities. You keep bringing up Danforth and its 'underused' stations, but that line was built for a tiny fraction of the current ungodly costs we're seeing now - and even then it was a daunting undertaking that required significant debate and a generation's worth of funding.

It should be pretty clear that what predated the subway on both Sheppard and Danforth were some of the busiest (if not the busiest) surface routes at the time. What's the current bus ridership on Jane north of Steeles, under a thousand or something ridiculous? That'd be like 2% of the ridership seen on surface routes which predated TO's subways. So factoring current costs, existing ridership, pre-existing population, and I guess related issues (like prospects of meeting goals or commitment to developing their centre)...it doesn't look like there are any examples to compare with in TO.

I'm assuming you'll counter this by telling me how the one saving grace of Vaughan's portion of TYSSE is that it's supposed to allow Vaughan to meet P2G goals, and that they're in the game for realsies. But considering they're sprawling outward and trying to open up protected greenbelt, or can't be bothered to bury a km of wooden transmission line along their main drag, I think that remains to be seen. In fifteen years the promise was 6,500 new jobs + 200 jobs/ha, and a pop of 17,000 (w/ 11,500jobs and 25k residents for larger VMC area). You say ultimately the "market" will drive things, but that wasn't the deal or promise made a few years ago.

And I still don't get why you doubt a hospital or city hall would be major trip generators. This has nothing to do with symbolism; their only competition at the moment is a single 14s office building. There's no rule book saying a suburban city hall or hospital must be a sprawling structure built within a subdivision or theme park parking lot. And I haven't read anything saying downtown Vaughan will be a different kind of downtown than usual downtowns. You say in another post that TO 'has its head up its butt' and that Vaughan or York Region are more transit-oriented. But look at another example: YRT's hq (and YR's main service centre) is located in a sea or parking lots behind a Harveys and facing a beer store loading dock. Although that location is still a lot better than Vaughan's case of using Major Mack 6km from "downtown", it still seems not all that great a decision on their part.

 

[TJ O'Pootertoot]

You keep bringing up Danforth and its 'underused' stations, but that line was built for a tiny fraction of the current ungodly costs we're seeing now - and even then it was a daunting undertaking that required significant debate and a generation's worth of funding.

True, but it's hardly a fair comparison since we're talking about two different eras.

So factoring current costs, existing ridership, pre-existing population, and I guess related issues (like prospects of meeting goals or commitment to developing their centre)...it doesn't look like there are any examples to compare with in TO.

Again, true. But no one ever argued this was about existing ridership. I think we agree (albeit with different spins) there's no example to compare with TO.

I'm assuming you'll counter this by telling me how the one saving grace of Vaughan's portion of TYSSE is that it's supposed to allow Vaughan to meet P2G goals, and that they're in the game for realsies. ...You say ultimately the "market" will drive things, but that wasn't the deal or promise made a few years ago.

Mmm, nah, I'd say Vaughan is trying to have it both ways, perhaps to the detriment of its TOD opportunities.
I don't know what promise you're referring too. There's little point getting into some huge academic argument about the relationship between the private market and public government but I'll simply say all the policy in the world wouldn't create intensification if there wasn't a market for it in the first place. Places to Grow isn't making people move into that Expo City condo at Jane/7; that's the market. It's also the market driving the urban expansion, of course. (I could equally talk about demographics, but you seem to simplify points to where Vaughan council is choosing how and where people live; they don't have that much power.)

And I still don't get why you doubt a hospital or city hall would be major trip generators.

I'm sure greater minds than I can quantify this. How many people travel in a given year to Toronto City Hall and how many go by transit? Maybe I underestimate it but I'm going to (pulling a number out of thin air) guess that fewer than 5% of Vaughan residents have EVER been to City Hall. (If you don't include Nathan Philips Square, I doubt the numbers are much higher in TO.)

Again, practical reality: Vaughan owns the land where its current City Hall is and would have had to purchase land in VMC. I'm perfectly willing to consider it would have been worth it; I'm just not sure, is all I'm saying.

This has nothing to do with symbolism; their only competition at the moment is a single 14s office building.

I don't understand how "competition" figures into it. And it has everything to do with symbolism. Vaughan could have shown its commitment to creating a true urban centre in VMC by putting their proverbial money where there mouth is. Instead they stayed way up in Maple and built their palace there

There's no rule book saying a suburban city hall or hospital must be a sprawling structure built within a subdivision or theme park parking lot.

I agree. Certainly there are hospitals and city hall in TO that are the opposite. But Vaughan was never going to build something like Sick Kids of Toronto General. And that's only partly the city's decision anyway.

And I haven't read anything saying downtown Vaughan will be a different kind of downtown than usual downtowns.

Why do you have to READ anything? You are aware, I'm quite certain, that it's a greenfield site (effectively) in a sprawling municipality with no centre and they're trying to create that centre. That's obviously totally different from a historic core that organically intensifies and becomes a downtown around which a municipality grows. Come on, man. Everyone on this board knows it's not a traditional downtown, including you.

You say in another post that TO 'has its head up its butt' and that Vaughan or York Region are more transit-oriented. But look at another example: YRT's hq (and YR's main service centre) is located in a sea or parking lots behind a Harveys and facing a beer store loading dock. Although that location is still a lot better than Vaughan's case of using Major Mack 6km from "downtown", it still seems not all that great a decision on their part.

You're kind of taking what I said out of context and then making mistakes.
The YRT building is officially called the South Services Centre and it has ancillary office for the region and some traffic courts. It was never designed to have a civic function, like a City Hall; it's a place to pay your tax bill if you don't want to drive up to Newmarket.

That's as silly as me criticizing TTC's HQ for backing onto a trench and a cemetery and, in addition to the old civic centres it absorbed, Toronto has boring, auto-oriented satellite offices too. Everyone does. Total red herring. YR's actual headquarters is still auto-oriented, no question, but at least then you're comparing apples to apples.

Markham's Civic Centre is a better example, since it is surrounded by parking, though they are essentially building their "downtown" around it. Richmond Hill's town hall is just a boring office tower with surface parking around it but they've talked about the idea of moving it to Richmond Hill Centre or near the historic core, up at Major Mac.

one more time: I do NOT think it would have been a bad idea for Vaughan to put its new city hall in VMC. I just don't think it failing to do so was a killshot, nor that putting it there would have been an important catalyst. Obviously some kind of large civic use will be important to making that "downtown" more than a collection of condos.

 

[44 North]

True, but it's hardly a fair comparison since we're talking about two different eras.

Which is exactly why I've been saying that it's not fair for you to continually make direct comparisons with Danforth or its "underused" stations.

Again, true. But no one ever argued this was about existing ridership. I think we agree (albeit with different spins) there's no example to compare with TO.

Find it hard to believe that in a thread about a subway line, nobody brought up pre-existing surface ridership. But no matter. Lack of pre-existing ridership is but one piece of the ample evidence as to why this portion of TYSSE is unprecedented on every front.

Mmm, nah, I'd say Vaughan is trying to have it both ways, perhaps to the detriment of its TOD opportunities.
I don't know what promise you're referring too. There's little point getting into some huge academic argument about the relationship between the private market and public government but I'll simply say all the policy in the world wouldn't create intensification if there wasn't a market for it in the first place. Places to Grow isn't making people move into that Expo City condo at Jane/7; that's the market. It's also the market driving the urban expansion, of course. (I could equally talk about demographics, but you seem to simplify points to where Vaughan council is choosing how and where people live; they don't have that much power.)

The promises made in seemingly every report and article about VMC, and most recently their secondary plan.

You said this portion of the extension was a "necessity" and basically argued that it was the best, nay, the only decision. But while it seems you're in agreement that every aspect is unprecedented, you're oddly absolving Vaughan and the prov in chalking up any current/future failings as something that's entirely out of their control. If this is such a big gamble wholly reliant on market conditions (which afaik are very favourable and conducive to highrise development), then perhaps you should agree that extending the subway to Vaughan was our worst transit decision ever. There I said it. But I've looked over the evidence as holistically and unbiased as I could to come to that conclusion. I think it's understandable why no BCA was given.

I'm sure greater minds than I can quantify this. How many people travel in a given year to Toronto City Hall and how many go by transit? Maybe I underestimate it but I'm going to (pulling a number out of thin air) guess that fewer than 5% of Vaughan residents have EVER been to City Hall. (If you don't include Nathan Philips Square, I doubt the numbers are much higher in TO.)

Again, practical reality: Vaughan owns the land where its current City Hall is and would have had to purchase land in VMC. I'm perfectly willing to consider it would have been worth it; I'm just not sure, is all I'm saying.

I don't understand how "competition" figures into it. And it has everything to do with symbolism. Vaughan could have shown its commitment to creating a true urban centre in VMC by putting their proverbial money where there mouth is. Instead they stayed way up in Maple and built their palace there

I honestly don't care about the issue of a city hall. In the grand scheme of things I doubt it would've really helped all that much in making the promises about VMC any closer to reality, or the heavy public investment any less suspect.

Why do you have to READ anything? You are aware, I'm quite certain, that it's a greenfield site (effectively) in a sprawling municipality with no centre and they're trying to create that centre. That's obviously totally different from a historic core that organically intensifies and becomes a downtown around which a municipality grows. Come on, man. Everyone on this board knows it's not a traditional downtown, including you.

Only a few parcels in VMC are genuinely greenfield though, and I'm well aware it's not a historic downtown. But it was still very much a built and active area of the city. So it's not really fair to say this is a true greenfield...perhaps more of a brownfield / infill sort of thing. As well, it had its "centre" status for about a decade, so for me it's the "trying to create that centre" I have a problem with, because it seems to me they're not trying very hard. Over that time Vaughan has opened up whitebelt lands, attempted to open up protected greenbelt, and forwarded a secondary plan for Vaughan Mills - which is to be similar to VMC, and with the hope that Line 1 will be extended there someday. Am I wrong for thinking Vaughan may be getting ahead of themselves, or for doubting that "the market" is responsible for setting in motion these plans?

You say VMC's development will take time, and I fully agree. But the promise was that in fifteen years VMC would be a high-population (25k), high-employment (11.5k), high-density downtown.

You're kind of taking what I said out of context and then making mistakes.
The YRT building is officially called the South Services Centre and it has ancillary office for the region and some traffic courts. It was never designed to have a civic function, like a City Hall; it's a place to pay your tax bill if you don't want to drive up to Newmarket.

That's as silly as me criticizing TTC's HQ for backing onto a trench and a cemetery and, in addition to the old civic centres it absorbed, Toronto has boring, auto-oriented satellite offices too. Everyone does. Total red herring. YR's actual headquarters is still auto-oriented, no question, but at least then you're comparing apples to apples.

Markham's Civic Centre is a better example, since it is surrounded by parking, though they are essentially building their "downtown" around it. Richmond Hill's town hall is just a boring office tower with surface parking around it but they've talked about the idea of moving it to Richmond Hill Centre or near the historic core, up at Major Mac.

one more time: I do NOT think it would have been a bad idea for Vaughan to put its new city hall in VMC. I just don't think it failing to do so was a killshot, nor that putting it there would have been an important catalyst. Obviously some kind of large civic use will be important to making that "downtown" more than a collection of condos.

I noticed you edited out the point about me being dead wrong re: YRT's hq location. Glad you did, because the building is still relatively new and most def is their hq. But again, I don't really care about the city hall thing. The lack of a civic institution in VMC - and lack of several other recipes for a successful centre - is just one small part of why I doubt Vaughan's commitment to its downtown, that the promises will be met, or that this can ever be considered even a remotely successful investment. But hopefully we'll get some more development proposals soon so I can be proven wrong.

 

[TJ O'Pootertoot]

Which is exactly why I've been saying that it's not fair for you to continually make direct comparisons with Danforth or its "underused" stations.

It's absurd to compare the costs of the B/D subway to the TYSSE because those are fixed costs in time.
It's not absurd to compare the lack of density along the Danforth to another subway line because intensification takes place over time. Obviously there is far more density along the Yonge line than along B/D, right? I'm not slamming B/D, I'm just talking about its history.

Even if I look only at North York Centre, I have ample proof that with the proper policies in place, the market will intensify along high-order transit. There are lovely, mature neighbourhoods along the B/D line that make that sort of intensification undesirable, especially today. But make no mistake: building that subway and then restricting development along its length was a conscious choice. Ergo, it's relevant that, at a policy level, York Region and Vaughan are aiming for extreme intensification at VMC. That's all I'm saying.

You said this portion of the extension was a "necessity" and basically argued that it was the best, nay, the only decision. But while it seems you're in agreement that every aspect is unprecedented, you're oddly absolving Vaughan and the prov in chalking up any current/future failings as something that's entirely out of their control.

Oh, sigh. First, I'm not the only who said that and secondly, I said it was a political necessity. No reasonable person would say otherwise. And I never said anything about future failings being out of their control, so I don't know what you're talking about. Everything is reliant on market conditions. The Toronto condo boom is being helped along by policies but it would be foolish to think City Hall CREATED that. The market is ripe for transit-oriented intensification and the policy now in place substantiates and furthers that. I'm with you, slamming Vaughan for opening new greenfield, setting their intensification target so low etc. but governments don't build communities any more than they create jobs.

Anyway, it's utterly absurd to agree it was "our worst transit decision ever," for a host of reasons, not the least of which are that a) It wasn't OUR decision [at least not mine; maybe you're secretly on the TTC?] b) it hasn't opened yet and it's impossible to evaluate a transit/planning project after less than a decade, much less before it opens. But rock it all you like in the meantime. (I'd probably counter that Scarborough was the worst decision EVER but I'd have the hubris to wait until it actually opened and failed before breaking out the UNDERLINE function.)

I honestly don't care about the issue of a city hall. In the grand scheme of things I doubt it would've really helped all that much in making the promises about VMC any closer to reality, or the heavy public investment any less suspect.

See - we do agree on some things.

Only a few parcels in VMC are genuinely greenfield though, and I'm well aware it's not a historic downtown. But it was still very much a built and active area of the city. So it's not really fair to say this is a true greenfield...perhaps more of a brownfield / infill sort of thing.

Yes - I said "Effectively" greenfield. Some parcels are long-term industrial uses (so, brownfield is fair), but most of is either greenfield or at least infill of fairly recent big box uses. No one will mourn the end of the AMC theatres. Ikea, maybe So much of it is technically infill.

As well, it had its "centre" status for about a decade, so for me it's the "trying to create that centre" I have a problem with, because it seems to me they're not trying very hard. Over that time Vaughan has opened up whitebelt lands, attempted to open up protected greenbelt, and forwarded a secondary plan for Vaughan Mills - which is to be similar to VMC, and with the hope that Line 1 will be extended there someday. Am I wrong for thinking Vaughan may be getting ahead of themselves, or for doubting that "the market" is responsible for setting in motion these plans?

Well, that's a fair point to at least debate, and we've agreed on it before. Vaughan is not the best-governed municipality in the GTA (though they at least look better than Brampton these days). The fact the centre has been around a decade isn't fair because, as I've said many times, that's how long planning takes. Markham Centre has been a centre since 1994!!! North York Centre since 1986!!! 2006 is nothing, especially given that it was contingent on the subway and that took time to iron out. It's coming along and I think it is a priority for them. Is it ENOUGH of a priority or are they just saying, "we've put the policy in place, now we're gonna leave it up to the market and worry about the sprawl side of our business?" That's a fair criticism. But the Viva lanes are going in, the first towers are going up....it is happening. How it turns out -whether it's a success - we won't know for a long time.

You say VMC's development will take time, and I fully agree. But the promise was that in fifteen years VMC would be a high-population (25k), high-employment (11.5k), high-density downtown.

Well, I'll agree to come back here in 2031 if you will, to give an interim report card. But 2006's Places to Grow designation was followed by 4 years of actually writing the new Official Plan and putting those policies in place and the subway has been delayed at both ends so the timeline "delays" aren't all on Vaughan.

You may be right it turns out to be an underused line and a failed experiment in using transit to build build suburban downtowns. I'm betting otherwise. But in the meantime, it's far too early to make any conclusions.

I noticed you edited out the point about me being dead wrong re: YRT's hq location. Glad you did, because the building is still relatively new and most def is their hq.

I edited out that initially I thought you said it was YORK REGION's HQ. But it's still just an office building. TTC HQ isn't any kind of civic hub. It's just a building. (Viva's HQ is actually separately located in a tower out near Markham Centre. Both are located close to transit hubs but I don't think their anonymity is of any significance. Metrolinx is hidden away in Union Station and a tower on Bay Street after all....it just strikes me as a red herring.

Markham Centre now has the Pan Am Centre and it's getting a York U campus. Those are 2 significant civic hubs VMC now lacks. No question they're going to need something like that in the long term, so we agree there too. Let's just hope it's not a casino...