[sixrings]

Again...people don't think these things out.

First of all, there is no one-size-fits-all policy. Secondly, the Bridle Path community is not "sprawl" (does anyone ever pay attention?????????).

I forgot that I wasn't capable of thinking and praying attention to your rants.... As a humble midtown resident, i apologize and submit that clearly you know and only you what's best for this city. #freshcutgrass4mayor

 

[freshcutgrass]

I forgot that I wasn't capable of thinking and praying attention to your rants.... As a humble midtown resident, i apologize and submit that clearly you know and only you what's best for this city. #freshcutgrass4mayor

Are you planning on defending your argument...or are you just going to stick to the sarcasm?

 

[sixrings]

Are you planning on defending your argument...or are you just going to stick to the sarcasm?

I believe others have made solid points which you dismiss yet at the same time pretend like you would facilitate a progressive discussion. There is no point debating with someone who has taken that stance. Btw kudos for recognizing the sarcasm without even an emoticon. Gold star.

 

[freshcutgrass]

Meanwhile....back at the cabana.

 

[howl]

I believe others have made solid points which you dismiss yet at the same time pretend like you would facilitate a progressive discussion. There is no point debating with someone who has taken that stance. Btw kudos for recognizing the sarcasm without even an emoticon. Gold star.

I don't know either of you and I can't say who's right or wrong, but over the last few pages freshcutgrass has come off looking like a mature reasoned individual and you (sixrings) have come off looking like someone trying to defend an undefendable position. Maybe you should try to restate your position in clearer language, not as a response to freshcutgrass but as an independent post.

 

[sixrings]

I don't know either of you and I can't say who's right or wrong, but over the last few pages freshcutgrass has come off looking like a mature reasoned individual and you (sixrings) have come off looking like someone trying to defend an undefendable position. Maybe you should try to restate your position in clearer language, not as a response to freshcutgrass but as an independent post.

I personally have no problem with a lot of freshcutgrass positions. I have lived downtown and now live midtown since I too believe that urban living has many benefits over the suburbs. What I take issue with is that freshcutgrass paints the downtown lifestyle as if it is somehow morally better then the suburbs. The double standards of allowing the rich to have huge lots is where freshcutgrass really lost me. Truthfully I might have just not liked the tone of many of his recent posts and didn't think this was suppose to be a 416 vs 905 thread... in fact I'm pretty sure we have one of those. Rob Ford managed to pit the inner city against the outer city. He won an election because suburban people were insulted rightfully or wrongfully by downtowners. It is in the cities best interest that we do not keep the fight going but rather try to work together to figure out how to make this city work more efficiently. Im sure freshcutgrass knows this and probably thinks this as well. However his passion for downtown living, which i am too a fan of, comes across as insulting to anyone who doesnt share the same view. As for the bridal path it does frustrate me that it makes it difficult to run transit across lawrence.

 

[freshcutgrass]

What I take issue with is that freshcutgrass paints the downtown lifestyle as if it is somehow morally better then the suburbs.

I wasn't "somehow painting" it...I was out and out saying it is morally better (at least as it pertains to the shopping at Walmart in your pyjamas).

Truthfully I might have just not liked the tone of many of his recent posts

I'm afraid that part was intentional.

didn't think this was suppose to be a 416 vs 905 thread

.

It wasn't I who made it into one...in fact, it is I who said the following....

But we have lost the topic. It isn't about the 905 vs the 416....or the Old Toronto vs the old boroughs. It's about Toronto's sprawl vs sprawl elsewhere.

In fact, it is I who brought up the idea that the 905 isn't really sprawl. (I know you don't like my tone when I point out you aren't paying attention...but you leave me little choice).

The double standards of allowing the rich to have huge lots is where freshcutgrass really lost me.

But it isn't a double standard. Small enclaves for the wealthy are sustainable....sprawl isn't. They also help preserve our urban ravine systems in the city.

As for the bridal path it does frustrate me that it makes it difficult to run transit across lawrence.

That problem is purely geographical.

 

[sixrings]

I wasn't "somehow painting" it...I was out and out saying it is morally better (at least as it pertains to the shopping at Walmart in your pyjamas).



I'm afraid that part was intentional.


.

It wasn't I who made it into one...in fact, it is I who said the following....



In fact, it is I who brought up the idea that the 905 isn't really sprawl. (I know you don't like my tone when I point out you aren't paying attention...but you leave me little choice).




But it isn't a double standard. Small enclaves for the wealthy are sustainable....sprawl isn't. They also help preserve our urban ravine systems in the city.




That problem is purely geographical.

damn instigator..... woodie woodpecker.... i had an idea you were just stirring it up...

 

[ksun]

Sprawl is bad period.

This is the truth.
It is people's insatiable apetite for house space that lead to sprawl. Triple gas price and let's see how far they are willing to live. (tripling it would be similar to European price, so it is not that scary at all).

 

[M.R.Victor]

But it isn't a double standard. Small enclaves for the wealthy are sustainable....sprawl isn't. They also help preserve our urban ravine systems in the city.

This doesn't make sense. A quick look at Google maps will reveal 2 things:
1. Tower-in-the-park style developments exist in ravines plenty, and there is no substantial incongruity between that style of development and the ravine system
2. Tons of golf courses, not particularly known for being examples of environmentally friendly, sustainable, or smart types of development, abut many of these ravines where wealthy enclaves are situated.

Your statement seems a bit like a post-rationalization of the fact that, in spite of what our (planners, politicians, forumers) best intentions may be, there simply isn't the political and monetary will to replace those wealthy enclaves with something more... middle class.

The Bridle Path and it's environments would be an example of the worst type of sprawl, and you'd surely single it out for a public shaming, if it were located say, on the outskirts of Brampton or Maple.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

M. R. Victor:

To be fair though, the issue here is that the total area taken up by wealthy enclaves is relatively small (even if you include golf courses into the mix) in comparison to the total amount of developed area. It maybe the worst "type" of sprawl on a density basis, but the saving grace is the relative rarity.

AoD

 

[freshcutgrass]

Tower-in-the-park style developments exist in ravines plenty, and there is no substantial incongruity between that style of development and the ravine system

There's a certain symbiosis between housing and ravines....ravine lots are highly desirable, and therefore have higher market values, attracting the wealthy, who can afford larger lots. This in turn provides a calming effect or buffer zone for the ravine's natural areas, as opposed to when the high density urban environment encroaches on it.

The Bridle Path and it's environments would be an example of the worst type of sprawl, and you'd surely single it out for a public shaming, if it were located say, on the outskirts of Brampton or Maple.

If it were sprawl, then it would be bad. Except it isn't sprawl...so you're the one not making any sense here. Sprawl has to do with context....it's a macro issue...not a micro issue. You can't just label a certain density or design "sprawl".


I'm not sure what to make of your golf course comment. I don't play golf, but I see them as just parkland specifically designed for a particular outdoor recreational sport....not the oil refinery environmental disaster you seem to be implying they are. As for being unsustainable...well, usage is up, as is revenue on the 5 city-owned courses. They turn a profit for the city.

 

[TOareaFan]

I have a hard time thinking of the bridle path as sprawl. Aside from its urban planning/geography usage, sprawl is a word that has a definition...here is one version of it " To spread out in a straggling or disordered fashion"

Implied in that is that it is an outreach...that it makes the city bigger and extends its boundries. I don't think the bridle path does that at all.

Is it low density...sure......is less "urban" than the majority of the city...yes.....is it sprawl....IMO, no.

 

[James]

I also don't see the Bridle Path neighborhood as sprawl. The area was clearly defined and designated decades ago. It was a planned development, at the time in the outskirts of the city, nonetheless. Reducing and/or eliminating low density neighborhoods like Forest Hill or the Bridle Path is not the means to reduce sprawl.

Basing the high-rise, high-density makeup of Manhattan as a model for Toronto's growth also is not the most appropriate solution. We can all agree that Manhattan attracts the wealthy elite who own condos in the sky right by Central Park but most of these individuals and families own larger homes outside of the city too. One of Toronto's great constructs is that there are a great number of neighborhoods close to the central business district where people want to have their principle residence. Without Rosedale, Forest Hill or the Bridle Path, the upper class would simply have their condo in the sky downtown while also owning a much larger dwelling outside of the city, most likely contributing to the suburban sprawl.

 

[freshcutgrass]

We can all agree that Manhattan attracts the wealthy elite who own condos in the sky right by Central Park but most of these individuals and families own larger homes outside of the city too.

That's what Long Island is for. Keep in mind that NYC has it's own municipal income tax on residents, so the wealthy save a lot of taxes by making their principal residence outside of NYC (you have to stay in NYC 184 days or more/year to qualify for NYC income tax).

Reducing and/or eliminating low density neighborhoods like Forest Hill or the Bridle Path is not the means to reduce sprawl.

Other than perhaps Jarvis St, I can't think of any examples of "reverse gentrification". Or why it would offer an advantage if we even wanted to do it.