I think you overestimate the power of NIMBY's, and the presence of NIMBY's in an area Jennifer Keesmaat just said was full of industrial sites and highway fly-overs. And even if that was the case, NIMBY's don't sit on Toronto City Council so the fault for no development would then lie entirely upon the Scarborough politicians who want the subway, to spur development. I don't think it's anything quite that nefarious.

People in North York Centre were (and probably still are, in some cases) very concerned about losing their neighbourhood. There are some changes you cannot stop.
 
Is it that Scarborough is not getting the same kind of attention from developers as other areas, is that what she meant? If so, why is it that places like Vaughan, Richmond Hill, Markham, Mississauga are getting so much more attention? Is it a fault with the city's planning?

A big factor in where developers build jobs and housing is accessibility. Thornhill and Richmond Hill are ridiculously accessible for most of the GTA. Yonge Street in Thornhill is closer to downtown by transit than Scarborough Centre, and it's beside a freeway that puts virtually the entire Toronto CMA within a 45 minute drive, even at rush hour. Scarborough Centre is very inaccessible - lots of traffic if you drive, and downtown by TTC is nearly an hour (and two transfers) away.
 
Is it that Scarborough is not getting the same kind of attention from developers as other areas, is that what she meant? If so, why is it that places like Vaughan, Richmond Hill, Markham, Mississauga are getting so much more attention? Is it a fault with the city's planning?

The problem with Scarbrough Centre is twofold: 1) the lack of competitive tax policy, and 2) the attractiveness of Downtown Toronto stifling the competition.

Downtown Toronto is a hugely attractive commercial centre. For other centres to compete with it, they largely have to depend on financial incentives, such as lower taxes, to encourage companies to locate there. This is what has spurred development of suburban office parks in Toronto's outser suburbs.

The problem Scarbrough, and all other centres within the City of Toronto face, is that they have the same tax policy applied to them as is applied to the downtown core. This means that they don't get the benefit of having a financial incentive for developers to locate there.

Furthermore, it costs developers the same to develop in Scarborough as it does in Downtown. Why would they build in Scarbrough, when there's more money to be made Downtown?

Improved transit in Scarbrough Centre is unlikely to improve the situation. Centres that are better connected that Scarbrough Centre, such as Eglinton-Yonge, have also been failures. Eglinton-Yonge has had a subway connection for 62 years, and a second subway is coming in five years. But even with those investments, the centre has attracted next to zero commercial development over the decades, because it is uncompetitive with Downtown Toronto. Scarbrough is even less competitive that Eglinton-Yonge, so I don't anticipate Scarbrough will fare better.
 
That dude's like my brutha from anotha motha! And, hey, I recognize someone in the comments! Why didn't you share, Northy? We need to keep this thread going with all the news fit to print or blog or whatever. A couple of weeks old? I hope I speak for many when I say I'm hurt you didn't think of us.

BTW, what makes you think the Transit City money was conditional ? Isn't it stunningly obvious by now - since all of the money except the Crosstown has been repurposed 5 times over - that it never was? As a great man once told me, plans change. Like that Don River guy said, obviously unconditional (at least subject to MOU negotiations). Toronto made a plan, the province gave them money to execute it. When the plan changed, the money was reapportioned. Isn't that all history at this point?

It's probably old news on this thread but I think the stuff about intensification is significant. I was kind of shaking my head when Keesmaat said that about Scarborough. If the market isn't ready there - several decades into a "suburban node" experiment that hasn't worked - why don't we build transit (subways, even!) where the market is obviously exploding. There's more than 1 reason Scarborough Centre hasn't become what was hoped but the fact they have an RT instead of a subway strikes me as an unlikely excuse.

It's a demonstrable fact the market is ready in Thornhill (and North York) so, all respect to the DRL, why is Scarborough a bigger priority?
Subways and Go. GO long distance (thorn hill), subways shorter (within Toronto)
 
The problem with Scarbrough Centre is twofold: 1) the lack of competitive tax policy, and 2) the attractiveness of Downtown Toronto stifling the competition.

Downtown Toronto is a hugely attractive commercial centre. For other centres to compete with it, they largely have to depend on financial incentives, such as lower taxes, to encourage companies to locate there. This is what has spurred development of suburban office parks in Toronto's outser suburbs.

The problem Scarbrough, and all other centres within the City of Toronto face, is that they have the same tax policy applied to them as is applied to the downtown core. This means that they don't get the benefit of having a financial incentive for developers to locate there.

Furthermore, it costs developers the same to develop in Scarborough as it does in Downtown. Why would they build in Scarbrough, when there's more money to be made Downtown?

Improved transit in Scarbrough Centre is unlikely to improve the situation. Centres that are better connected that Scarbrough Centre, such as Eglinton-Yonge, have also been failures. Eglinton-Yonge has had a subway connection for 62 years, and a second subway is coming in five years. But even with those investments, the centre has attracted next to zero commercial development over the decades, because it is uncompetitive with Downtown Toronto. Scarbrough is even less competitive that Eglinton-Yonge, so I don't anticipate Scarbrough will fare better.
The only think subways bring especially to suburban areas are condos
 
The only think subways bring especially to suburban areas are condos

Distance from RHC to North York Centre is 8.7 Km, distance from Yonge and Steeles to Union stations is 16 Km. How you don't understand that travel distance is relative to the trips being made is priceless
 
biggest limiter on suburban centres in terms of office attraction is actually parking.

Suburban office parks are competitive as parking is cheap to provide - mostly in surface lots (~$5,000 / spot) or perhaps in bare bones parking structures ($25-30,000 / spot). Downtown is attractive as you do not have to provide parking.

Suburban centres often have to provide less parking than suburban office parks, maybe 80% as much, but they have to put in in underground garages. And those are damn expensive. ($50,000+ / spot) This is such a limiting factor that it can be nearly as expensive to build in a suburban centre as downtown, so company's often just opt for downtown.

Commercial property taxes are relatively small change compared to that.


Yonge Eglinton's major limiting factor is a lack of highway access - even downtown has better access. North York is stagnate due to the above noted parking costs - many employees still drive to those offices and parking has to be provided - so you need 800 spots where a downtown office needs maybe 200. Its easier just to locate downtown or in a suburban spot where you can provide 1,200 spots at a fraction of the cost.

And yes, access is huge. 407 access is a popular feature today - as its ideal for commuting due to its free flowing nature. You can live in Pickering and work in Mississauga with a 40 minute commute. Freight doesn't like it as its too expensive - but white collar offices like it as it makes it easy to get to work for higher income employees.
 
Last edited:
Distance from RHC to North York Centre is 8.7 Km, distance from Yonge and Steeles to Union stations is 16 Km. How you don't understand that travel distance is relative to the trips being made is priceless
As we have seen in the Sheppard case, a majority of those suburban condo dwellers will be driving to work.

I figure this will largely be the case for someone who decides to buy a condo at Highway 7 and Yonge. The subway only means that there is even more commuter capacity, and that those condos planned will be 30+ storeys rather than 12-20 storey midrises.
 
As we have seen in the Sheppard case, a majority of those suburban condo dwellers will be driving to work.

I figure this will largely be the case for someone who decides to buy a condo at Highway 7 and Yonge. The subway only means that there is even more commuter capacity, and that those condos planned will be 30+ storeys rather than 12-20 storey midrises.

The Sheppard situation is a bit different in terms of geography (both locally and regionally) but this is possible.
From within RHC and Langstaff, getting on the 407 could be tricky, especially compared to, say, Markham Centre. There was some talk of building another ramp but it's not in any of the plans so far and adding one would be counter-productive, and them kind of throwing in the towel on the transit-oriented thing.

It's a tricky thing since the 407 provides major access but it's not something they necessarily want to leverage. You need to have your cake and eat it to, so to speak, and if the Transitway were actually active,that would provide something of an off-set but who knows when that is happening.

As insertnamehere points out, the real challenge is employment. If you can actually get some jobs in the centre (and there are some promising, if limited, signs in VMC and Markham Centre), then you drive more people to transit and create live/work opportunities, which is the real fundamental goal. There seems to be a shift going on away from the business park model, at least to an extent. Major corporations are increasingly either returning to downtown or other more active, mixed-use centres. Will they go to a new "suburban downtown"? That's the big question, TBD. (Both Markham Centre and VMC have the advantage of building cheap surface parking now, transitioning to underground as they fill in. That'll be close to impossible in Langstaff and relatively easy to do in RHC....)
 
The Sheppard situation is a bit different in terms of geography (both locally and regionally) but this is possible.
From within RHC and Langstaff, getting on the 407 could be tricky, especially compared to, say, Markham Centre. There was some talk of building another ramp but it's not in any of the plans so far and adding one would be counter-productive, and them kind of throwing in the towel on the transit-oriented thing.

It's a tricky thing since the 407 provides major access but it's not something they necessarily want to leverage. You need to have your cake and eat it to, so to speak, and if the Transitway were actually active,that would provide something of an off-set but who knows when that is happening.

If these 905 centres are supposed to be urban and transit oriented, having them located next to highways is a flaw that will undermine their purpose and ensure that a large number of people will continue using their cars. While North York Centre may be considered successful and have decent streetlife, walking along a six lane arterial road that serves mostly as a 401 off-ramp is not exactly a great urban experience compared to Yonge & Eglinton. Vaughan and Richmond Hill Centre will be even worse given how wide Highway 7 is and how fast the traffic moves. But for those who enjoy hearing constant highway noise and breathing in the crappy air that comes along with it, these will be great places to live.
 
Ok. But neither RHC nor Langstaff nor Markham Centre is oriented along Highway 7. It's not even at grade with 2 of them, much less the main street. I'll grant that is a challenge for VMC.

But you're talking about 2 totally different issues, highway access and urban design.

Access may be an issue for these centres but design is not. (I also think it's silly to suggest there is an "on ramp" atmosphere south of Sheppard, which is where NYCC is, but chacun son gout. )
 
But you're talking about 2 totally different issues, highway access and urban design.

Downtown TO has great access to highways and yet is clearly very urban at the same time.
 
I don't see why surface temp lots in Langstaff are tough to build - I also don't see why you think 407 access will be difficult for Langstaff Gateway of all places.. The off ramp from the eastbound 407 leads right into the area.. Markham centre is certainly no better.

VMC has Highway 7, but they are trying to focus most activity off of it. Unlike NYCC which uses Yonge as its central spine, VMC is going for more of a block based approach with pedestrian activity occurring away from 7.

Highway access is key to these centres as ultimately they will always be more auto dependent than downtown. No matter how you try, many people will still drive to work in them and drive to work from them. The densities proposed in them mean you need highway access to properly serve this demand. Vaughan Centre is actually extremely well situated in this regard, with easy 400 and 407 access.
 
Downtown TO has great access to highways and yet is clearly very urban at the same time.

Of course; part of what makes it downtown.
But Salsa was sort of talking about 2 things at the same time, and I think ti's confusing the issue, saying NYCC is less successful BECAUSE it has Highway 401 diverting people from transit (access issue) and also that wide arterials create less street life (design issue). Though the major York Region centres (VMC, Mkm C and RHC/LG) are all close to the 407, LG/RHC doesn't necessarily have easy access to it and only VMC is along a wide arterial.

Ergo, none of the points really add up as significant detractors for those areas.

I don't see why surface temp lots in Langstaff are tough to build - I also don't see why you think 407 access will be difficult for Langstaff Gateway of all places.. The off ramp from the eastbound 407 leads right into the area.. Markham centre is certainly no better.

Obviously parking lots are not "tough to build" but Langstaff is so compact, and the locations earmarked for office construction so specific, it's hard to imagine anyone building a tower without parking (either underground or otherwise within the construction)t. It seems like the sort of place that would just skip the "empty surface lot" phase, all the moreso because so much of that already exists on the other side of Highway 7. There's just little point.

[Side note: they've been clearing some of the old industrial sites close to Yonge in recent months. I don't know that any development is imminent, but changes are happening.]

And the highway off-ramps are just outside the area, yes, but there is only a single road in or out and will never be more. That's the entire reason the community was designed around transit rather than hiring a planner who could figure out the best way to funnel riders to the 407. 407 access is obviously a benefit in some regards, but it's not central to the transportation planning at all. It was literally an afterthought in the planning of LG. The 407 Transitway, on the other hand...

VMC has Highway 7, but they are trying to focus most activity off of it. Unlike NYCC which uses Yonge as its central spine, VMC is going for more of a block based approach with pedestrian activity occurring away from 7.

Indeed - which is wise on their part. Their fancy renderings still something show like an NYCC streetwall on 7 (and then there was all that "Avenue 7" silliness a few years ago) but it's never going to be NYCC-Yonge Street, much less downtown Yonge Street. Either way, to Salsa's point, I don't see Highway 7's "atmosphere" as a negative in any of the 3 YR centres.

Highway access is key to these centres as ultimately they will always be more auto dependent than downtown. No matter how you try, many people will still drive to work in them and drive to work from them.

That's true in pretty much any urban area anywhere that isn't "downtown" because you're basically just defining a traditional downtown.

But, as has been said many times (especially by me) Langstaff Gateway can NOT develop under those circumstances. Phases are specifically tied not only to infrastructure but to modal split. If 70% of people who live/work there are taking cars on/off the 407, the developers will not get to advance their projects and/or they will end up being a lot smaller.

The densities proposed in them mean you need highway access to properly serve this demand.

This is untrue, in regards to LG, specifically and largely untrue for RHC as well. But, to say what I've said 50 times, it's the fact that this is incorrect that makes LG different from every other urban centre planned in the GTA and perhaps in North America. (And, as I've said, maybe it won't turn out as planned - but that IS the plan.)
 
Last edited:

Back
Top