King of Kensington
Senior Member
Not to mention the large number of wealthy people living in suburban Westchester County and Long Island. It's silly to look at Manhattan in isolation.
|
|
|
- Thread starter middeljohn
- Start date
M.R.Victor
Active Member
My comment regarding the golf courses was towards the cocktail of fertilizers and pesticides that usually go into the generally extensive maintenance of such spaces.
I do realize that the Bridle Path does not fit the official definition of sprawl, but you can't deny that it functions very differently from most other urban neighborhoods. On the metrics of walkability, density, access, public space and serviceability by transit, this neighborhood would register marks very similar to those of sprawl. As far as low(er) density enclaves for the very rich, Rosedale and Moore Park are much, much better, IMO.
I do realize that the Bridle Path does not fit the official definition of sprawl, but you can't deny that it functions very differently from most other urban neighborhoods. On the metrics of walkability, density, access, public space and serviceability by transit, this neighborhood would register marks very similar to those of sprawl. As far as low(er) density enclaves for the very rich, Rosedale and Moore Park are much, much better, IMO.
Last edited:
TOareaFan
Superstar
The only difference is that one of them is full of people who don't desire those things and they aren't possible/feasible and the others are full of people who don't desire those things even though they are possible/feasible.
W. K. Lis
Superstar
Was Bay Street ever just residential? Bay Street was outside the borders of the Town of York, in other words, suburbia. This was before zoning.
Zoning itself restricts change. I remember visiting a dentist who had an office in a room of an otherwise residential house. You will not see another Kensington Market develop in an area currently zoned for residential. One reason is that the commercial property tax rate is about three times the residential property tax rate. The city would prefer to keep them separate.
Zoning itself restricts change. I remember visiting a dentist who had an office in a room of an otherwise residential house. You will not see another Kensington Market develop in an area currently zoned for residential. One reason is that the commercial property tax rate is about three times the residential property tax rate. The city would prefer to keep them separate.
Memph
Active Member
So I'm just trying to understand this definition of sprawl. Right now, Springdale is sprawl, because it's on the suburban-rural fringe of Brampton, but if all of Caledon gets suburbanized, Springdale is no longer sprawl because it's surrounded by development and therefore not causing the city to be bigger? The Bridle Path was sprawl in 1960, but no longer in 2010?
As for whether or not it would lead to more sprawl if following the Manhattan model...
So the assumption is that currently,
Super rich household takes up 2 acres of space in the Bridle Path
Manhattan Model
Super rich household takes up 0.01-0.05 acres in a luxury condo or brownstone in the core, plus 2 acres in King (or some such).
So yeah, the current model would take up about 1% less space... However, there are at least some advantages of having the highest densities in the core with gradually decreasing densities as you go further out (Manhattan model). Mainly, it means that transit doesn't have to be built as far out, because the majority of the population lives closer to the core, with only a small percentage living in the low density fringe.
And...
All of this assumes that the people who live in North Toronto and South and Central North York in big single family homes don't own a cottage in the Kawarthas or Muskokas, which they probably do. If they already have a place in the city core, I'm not sure they would need an estate retreat in King plus a cottage retreat in the Muskokas.
King of Kensington
Senior Member
I agree that it makes sense to follow the "Manhattan model." I just find it strange that some are pointing to Manhattan as a contrast to the Bridle Path, when the equivalent of Bridle Path residents would live in Westchester or on Long Island. As if these people can so easily be "convinced" to live "densely."
freshcutgrass
Senior Member
The Bridle Path never was, or ever will be sprawl.
It's too small (the actual Bridal Path area is probably not much more than 100 properties)
It's too expensive (Sprawl is fueled by the need for cheaper land and lower taxes)
It's a planned community within municipal boundaries (sprawl falls outside of core city municipal boundaries, and often in unincorporated areas).
It isn't car dependant...residents are a ten minute walk to TTC level service public transit (sprawl doesn't support public transit period, let alone TTC level service)
It is too low density. The problem with sprawl isn't that it is low density...it's that it is car dependent, single use and the higher the density, the worse the negative effects are.
freshcutgrass
Senior Member
There may be certain things we might want to emulate or tweak for use in parts of Toronto, but we wouldn't want to follow Manhattan as a "model"...it's has too many flaws and things that simply don't translate to Toronto.. While there's plenty to be gleaned from many world cities, I think Toronto is creating quite an interesting urban model unique to itself. As Toronto continues to mature and densify, I think it's unique urban anomalies will make it one of the world's more interesting big cities. One of the problems will be that the abundant victorian & edwardian era residential areas are going to become considerably more expensive than they already are. Buy as quickly as you can.
salsa
Senior Member
Parkland should be for the benefit of everybody and support a variety of activities. Golf courses are only for the lucky few who have a paid membership that allows them to use it. There are countless ravines where these golf courses have gotten in the way of otherwise having a continuous and uninterrupted trail system for thousands of cyclists, runners, and dog walkers to use (see Don Valley and Humber river, among others).
Also, "environmental disaster" is right. They are a cesspool of pesticides, fertilizers, and water wasting that gets flushed into out rivers. From above it looks more like a scar upon the earth than a park.
salsa
Senior Member
Check out this hilarious speech about America's "disastrous" urban development in suburbia.
http://www.ted.com/talks/james_howard_kunstler_dissects_suburbia#t-1001483
http://www.ted.com/talks/james_howard_kunstler_dissects_suburbia#t-1001483
freshcutgrass
Senior Member
So what are you saying...we should ban golf? Kinda goes against your concept of variety of activities donnit?
Anyone who likes to golf can golf....there are private and public courses. Golf is just an activity that requires a large amount of green space. Luckily, we have a lot of it in Toronto. The idea that we are suffering for green space because of golf courses is just hogwash (I've never used that term before!! ).
Hyperbole much? One block of housing creates more environmental damage than a golf course. Seriously...it's not golf courses that worry me.
*EDIT* Oh...and BTW....you are showing Islington Golf Club, which is a private course...not a city course. It's been there for ninety frick'n years!!. It's always been private property...not public parkland. If they hadn't built and kept this golf course, it would be just more Etobicoke suburban housing.
Last edited:
BobBob
Senior Member
Is there something preventing them from selling a huge piece of land like that to developers? Are golf courses protected by zoning in some way?
I'm probably wrong, but I'm finding it difficult to imagine that a golf course deep within the city could be profitable enough to keep the owners from cashing out.
I'm probably wrong, but I'm finding it difficult to imagine that a golf course deep within the city could be profitable enough to keep the owners from cashing out.
innsertnamehere
Superstar
its likely a floodplain which means a subdivision can't be built in it. its either parkland or a golf course, so its a golf course.
TOareaFan
Superstar
Islington does not have to be profitable....it is a private club owned by its membership. Members pay initiation fees to join then annual dues...they just need to cover the costs operating and upkeep....no need for profit.
That said, some of the most affordable golf in the GTHA can be found at Toronto's Municipally owned/operated golf courses and they return a profit to the city.
freshcutgrass
Senior Member
Yes
No
City of Toronto's golf courses tend to be very old...they were created from farm land long before any development around them. When Metro was created and the post war boom was happening, the city signed deals in the 50's and 60's with 9 privately owned golf clubs to maintain green space. Golf courses would receive tax rebates as long as they remained golf courses. If they sold the land to developers, they would have to repay all deferred taxes plus interest. This was a mutually beneficial agreement that has worked to this day.
In total, there are 19 golf courses within the City of Toronto. Few major cities of the world can boast that kind of golfing within their city limits. The Toronto region is one of the great golfing destinations of the world, and a source of tourism. They are a great asset in more ways than one.