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.)
