Made me cringe the first time I read it.
Cringeworthiness notwithstanding, we got a difference in visions here. And it seems to be heavily informed by emotion. I cringe at the idea of soulless, gated high rise complexes. Where's the practical middle ground?
Is transport construction all about long haul? Does it play any role in serving the short-distance market, or is that for feet and bikes and cars? And what about economic development?
We appear to have swung entirely in favour of high-capital, high-density infrastructure development, leaving even minor surface upgrades blowing in the wind.
Perhaps the objection is to the state/the larger community having any say in urban design, which should be the purview or the private sector and their architects and engineers... Well, Sheppard is going to be so dependent on neighbourhood-transforming structures that we will be forced to consider how the corridor will function and yes, how it will look.
Urban design considers how people inhabit the space between buildings, and the effect of the visual and physical environment on our daily activities and experience. An architect can create a work of beauty, but is limited to the building's footprint. Who speaks for the impact of pleasing, vibrant urban spaces?
It seems to me surface transit upgrades change the scale of suburban avenues and benefit small and medium landowners more than large developers. If that's too government-interventionist -- to facilitate independent-type redevelopment through transport capital -- well then who is Sheppard facilitating?
It might be instructive to go for a walk in the Annex and then a take stroll in downtown North York, and consider that there may be a role for both long-haul as well as more intensive transit upgrades. Why does Finch have to be frequent bus stops in mixed traffic vs. 2km stop spacing? LRT or BRT within 416 is a compromise between doing nothing for surface and over-building subways.
-ed