Caledon-Vaughan GO Rail Line

[kamira51]

Its amazing how much work has been done for this proposal.

Bolton Option 3 Landowners Group

www.caledon.ca

 

[crs1026]

Its amazing how much work has been done for this proposal.

Bolton Option 3 Landowners Group

www.caledon.ca

Doesn't seem unusual. If you want to turn 450 acres of prime farmland into a residential community, then yes, there are a few questions to answer along the way.

There may already be enough development and commuting demand up that way to support a GO route, but I am not a fan of sprawl, even if it produces more GO trains. Seeing developers pitch GO expansion to places that aren't even zoned for residential yet is really concerning.

- Paul

 

[kamira51]

Doesn't seem unusual. If you want to turn 450 acres of prime farmland into a residential community, then yes, there are a few questions to answer along the way.

There may already be enough development and commuting demand up that way to support a GO route, but I am not a fan of sprawl, even if it produces more GO trains. Seeing developers pitch GO expansion to places that aren't even zoned for residential yet is really concerning.

- Paul

While I understand your concern regarding the sprawl in Caledon, I'm just gonna say this

Much of this "prime farmland" people are so fond of saving are actually rundown or the land is just rented out. Half of the land this project is being built on is abandoned/rundown for as long as I can remember. Most likely sold 10 years ago to developers waiting to be developed.

And one more tidbit, most of the farmland you see being developed, was sold by the farmers themselves.

So if you want to stop sprawl, you might wanna look at the people who are selling the land.

 

[slickpete83]

don't worry in the future robots will grow our food indoors with vertical farming, that way we can built more cookie cutter investment grade subdivision houses lol...

 

[drum118]

Doesn't seem unusual. If you want to turn 450 acres of prime farmland into a residential community, then yes, there are a few questions to answer along the way.

There may already be enough development and commuting demand up that way to support a GO route, but I am not a fan of sprawl, even if it produces more GO trains. Seeing developers pitch GO expansion to places that aren't even zoned for residential yet is really concerning.

- Paul

That has been my great fear of expanding GO as it opens the door to urban sprawl in places that have no policy in place to deal with it in the first place. Going to Hamilton, London or any large city of 300,000+ is one thing, but going to X with 10-50,000 is unwelcome urban sprawl and traffic issues.

A lot of famers have sold land as there is no family member to carry on the farm, the return is too low and so on.

The green belt was setup to stop urban sprawl, so other land must be protected for framing, otherwise where will the food from it come from down the road?? Once you open the door to lost framing and food, you are setting yourself up to pay higher food cost to have X country to produce it as well having a gun pointed with huge demands. You can never recover that lost farm land down the road as the soil does call the shot doing so.

 

[allengeorge]

don't worry in the future robots will grow our food indoors with vertical farming, that way we can built more cookie cutter investment grade subdivision houses lol...

Don't get me started on this... Vertical farming is expensive, and so far, only suited to the production of greens. Taking some of the most fertile land in Canada (whether it is "run down" or not) and paving it over for car-dependent SFH is one of the most stupid, shortsighted things we can do as a country - and we've had our share of incredibly bad decisions over history.

 

[Nomad_87]

That has been my great fear of expanding GO as it opens the door to urban sprawl in places that have no policy in place to deal with it in the first place. Going to Hamilton, London or any large city of 300,000+ is one thing, but going to X with 10-50,000 is unwelcome urban sprawl and traffic issues.

A lot of famers have sold land as there is no family member to carry on the farm, the return is too low and so on.

The green belt was setup to stop urban sprawl, so other land must be protected for framing, otherwise where will the food from it come from down the road?? Once you open the door to lost framing and food, you are setting yourself up to pay higher food cost to have X country to produce it as well having a gun pointed with huge demands. You can never recover that lost farm land down the road as the soil does call the shot doing so.

Unfortunately it seems like no one important wants to stop. Everyone I know generally agrees sprawl is bad, but they don’t want more sustainable development because “being packed like sardines is dystopian” or “detached housing should remain middle class housing”. (Real arguments I’ve heard from real people). So what do we do? Stop building all together or continue this trend of constant sprawl. Just really wished people understood that living in a townhouse isn’t the end of the world

 

[lenaitch]

While I understand your concern regarding the sprawl in Caledon, I'm just gonna say this

Much of this "prime farmland" people are so fond of saving are actually rundown or the land is just rented out. Half of the land this project is being built on is abandoned/rundown for as long as I can remember. Most likely sold 10 years ago to developers waiting to be developed.

And one more tidbit, most of the farmland you see being developed, was sold by the farmers themselves.

So if you want to stop sprawl, you might wanna look at the people who are selling the land.

The 'worth' of productive farmland is not in the casual appearance, it's in factors such as the quality/classification of soil and drainage. Fields that have been 'let go' can be brought back into production in a season and, even at that, a field that looks ignored may not be - we've become used to seeing neat and organized fields.

Historically, farming was an industry of succession; the parent retired - often to a new house on a lot severed from the farm, and turned the farm over to the kid(s). Now, few want it as a career. Coming into the industry cold is astonishingly expensive, certainly at southern Ontario land prices, as well as the costs of equipment, milk quotas, etc.

The value of the farm, machinery, herds, etc. is the farmer's pension. Typically, during his life, any spare money has been rolled back into the business, reduced debt, etc. rather than investment/retirement plans. I just know that most of the apparently active farmland around the GTA is owned by a numbered company. I don't like it, but understand why. While restricting land use and controlling sprawl in the various belts around Toronto are needed and well intentioned, it has to be recognized that they can have a direct impact on some property owners.

 

[crs1026]

Unfortunately it seems like no one important wants to stop. Everyone I know generally agrees sprawl is bad, but they don’t want more sustainable development because “being packed like sardines is dystopian” or “detached housing should remain middle class housing”. (Real arguments I’ve heard from real people). So what do we do? Stop building all together or continue this trend of constant sprawl. Just really wished people understood that living in a townhouse isn’t the end of the world

I actually understand those reactions, in fact I’m in that very quandry myself - being of an age where the kids have flown and we have more house and yard than we need as a couple. As a friend in like circumstances said recently, “We are bird and flower people”….. the options going forward are not attractive.

I think the housing mix that is being offered in the GTA is grossly out of whack with what is optimal. A very laissez-faire, cozy-in-the backroom mentality at the municipal and provincial level is very much causing this. There are housing types and low-rise designs that could meet the region’s demand for housing and still be profitablefor developers and builders… but instead we build towers, and go a bit too far in telling people “suck it up and get used to it”. I do find 2 bedroom condos dystopian, but that need not be how we solve our future.

As to farmland being run down, I don’t blame people for seeing where their bread is buttered. In our system, farmland adjoining the GTA develops value by virtue of being “developable” some day. I can’t fault farmers who see greater return in just waiting for a cashout. However…. put in some much more effective restrictions on converting farmland to development, and those demand/price pressures ease, and the financial incentive to cashing in diminishes. (Hard sell for those holding land today, I know, but that’s the risk they took). Toronto’s fairly disciplined approach to retaining employment lands is analogous. It’s only draconian in the eyes of those who hoped to make money building the wrong types of housing.

Getting back to Bolton, the old adage applies - If you are in a hole, just stop digging. My main point is simply that this proposal has to be seen for what it is - a self interested and conflicted application by a proponent who is not advocating solving transportation needs or even solving our housing challeng, but in fact creating them. They will collect a profit and then depart, leaving us with the result. Not quite the great vision that their glossy pitch may appear, and not a good business case for building GO trains.

- Paul

 

[DirectionNorth]

While I understand your concern regarding the sprawl in Caledon, I'm just gonna say this

Much of this "prime farmland" people are so fond of saving are actually rundown or the land is just rented out. Half of the land this project is being built on is abandoned/rundown for as long as I can remember. Most likely sold 10 years ago to developers waiting to be developed.

I'm not doing this to save farmland, but to stop sprawl. The negative externalities of sprawl are enormous, both societally (congestion), environmentally (cars), and health-wise (not walking/biking). .

And one more tidbit, most of the farmland you see being developed, was sold by the farmers themselves

So? How does this have to do with the negative aspects of sprawl?

So if you want to stop sprawl, you might wanna look at the people who are selling the land.

Or maybe the people who are building the sprawl? Or maybe the people who are approving the sprawl?

Unfortunately it seems like no one important wants to stop. Everyone I know generally agrees sprawl is bad, but they don’t want more sustainable development because “being packed like sardines is dystopian” or “detached housing should remain middle class housing”. (Real arguments I’ve heard from real people). So what do we do? Stop building all together or continue this trend of constant sprawl. Just really wished people understood that living in a townhouse isn’t the end of the world

Or build better condos. Admittedly, most of them are unsuitable for living in. We can set standards to change that, or we can subsidize larger condos, or build them ourselves (from the POV of the government).

I actually understand those reactions, in fact I’m in that very quandry myself - being of an age where the kids have flown and we have more house and yard than we need as a couple. As a friend in like circumstances said recently, “We are bird and flower people”….. the options going forward are not attractive.

I think the housing mix that is being offered in the GTA is grossly out of whack with what is optimal. A very laissez-faire, cozy-in-the backroom mentality at the municipal and provincial level is very much causing this. There are housing types and low-rise designs that could meet the region’s demand for housing and still be profitablefor developers and builders… but instead we build towers, and go a bit too far in telling people “suck it up and get used to it”. I do find 2 bedroom condos dystopian, but that need not be how we solve our future.

Agree. Larger units in medium-but-consistent-density is better.

As to farmland being run down, I don’t blame people for seeing where their bread is buttered. In our system, farmland adjoining the GTA develops value by virtue of being “developable” some day. I can’t fault farmers who see greater return in just waiting for a cashout. However…. put in some much more effective restrictions on converting farmland to development, and those demand/price pressures ease, and the financial incentive to cashing in diminishes. (Hard sell for those holding land today, I know, but that’s the risk they took). Toronto’s fairly disciplined approach to retaining employment lands is analogous. It’s only draconian in the eyes of those who hoped to make money building the wrong types of housing.

Agree.

Getting back to Bolton, the old adage applies - If you are in a hole, just stop digging. My main point is simply that this proposal has to be seen for what it is - a self interested and conflicted application by a proponent who is not advocating solving transportation needs or even solving our housing challeng, but in fact creating them. They will collect a profit and then depart, leaving us with the result. Not quite the great vision that their glossy pitch may appear, and not a good business case for building GO trains.

- Paul

Good points, Paul!

 

[Deadpool X]

Saw this on my way home from work.
View attachment 349809

It's nice to see Caledon is really pushing for this.

If Caledon can be called a Transit Hub, I can safely call my local Mississauga bus stop Union West.

 

[Nomad_87]

I actually understand those reactions, in fact I’m in that very quandry myself - being of an age where the kids have flown and we have more house and yard than we need as a couple. As a friend in like circumstances said recently, “We are bird and flower people”….. the options going forward are not attractive.

I think the housing mix that is being offered in the GTA is grossly out of whack with what is optimal. A very laissez-faire, cozy-in-the backroom mentality at the municipal and provincial level is very much causing this. There are housing types and low-rise designs that could meet the region’s demand for housing and still be profitablefor developers and builders… but instead we build towers, and go a bit too far in telling people “suck it up and get used to it”. I do find 2 bedroom condos dystopian, but that need not be how we solve our future.

I do not necessarily disagree that the condos we're building are subpar and missing middle density is needed, my favourite urban environments are old downtowns in smaller towns and cities. The problem I have is when people use it as a blanket statement to defend sprawl, because apparently you need a front yard otherwise you're not "living good". Yes things should change to make these developments more viable, but the acceptance of the status quo by so many is a massive part of the problem. Also this might just be me, but I do not see how 2 bedroom condos are dystopian. 4+ people living in them and the prices we pay certainly are, but there will always be demand for stuff like this. Especially in major population centers. Condos have a place, just not nearly as big a place as they have right now.

 

[crs1026]

I do not necessarily disagree that the condos we're building are subpar and missing middle density is needed, my favourite urban environments are old downtowns in smaller towns and cities. The problem I have is when people use it as a blanket statement to defend sprawl, because apparently you need a front yard otherwise you're not "living good". Yes things should change to make these developments more viable, but the acceptance of the status quo by so many is a massive part of the problem. Also this might just be me, but I do not see how 2 bedroom condos are dystopian. 4+ people living in them and the prices we pay certainly are, but there will always be demand for stuff like this. Especially in major population centers. Condos have a place, just not nearly as big a place as they have right now.

I would like to see more 3-bedroom low rise units in the housing mix. One or two bedroom units may be fine as a starter residence, and many singles or couples will find them sufficient…. but once kids arrive, they are inadequate as family spaces.

I will admit I’m in a narrow (but numerically strong) demographic - empty nesters who are maintaining an active semi retirement lifestyle while looking ahead to less able years ahead . On the one hand, it’s appealing to shed the upkeep on a house and lawn, and we have only so many years of climbing stairs ahead…. on the other hand, we are still in the need of a working den/workspace, and grandkids and their parents need enough space to stay over. Fitness facilities are important, but I won’t be doing 50 kms on a Peleton daily. Connection to the birds and nature and outdoors eg gardening is a huge part of our mental health.

When I look at properties over the pond, it’s impressive how much of the older middle density built form has back terraces or garden areas. Not visible from the street, not necessarily large, but a visually and physically separated area where one can grow a bit of greenery, find some outdoor serenity, and maybe entertain another couple. The condo balcony just doesn’t do this, and many actually are energy wasters….the slab floors radiate building heat in winter.

I agree with your comment about small town main streets….very few of the big condo developments achieve a living streetscape. They are hugely sterile, and even if mixed use is incorporated, greedy rent levels discourage the commercail mix that is needed.

Getting back on topic… nothing about the Bolton development achieves any of this. It truly is more of what we have outgrown.

- Paul

 

[Allandale25]

For Caledon, better train connectivity still a long-haul dream

The news release was issued by the Province of Ontario on Sept. 15, 2021.

www.caledonenterprise.com

 

[ssiguy2]

For Caledon, better train connectivity still a long-haul dream

The news release was issued by the Province of Ontario on Sept. 15, 2021.

www.caledonenterprise.com

I completely agree with this article. A GO service to Bolton makes infinitely more sense than this non-service they are offering Londoners. No one in London would ever be stupid enough to take this train to Toronto and God knows it's useless for commuters. At least the Bolton service would actually provide a needed service and is money far better spent.

This new GO service to London is already the butt of jokes in the city so you might as well provide the service where the citizens will actually appreciate and use it.