Search results

Except that it isn't an out of context statement (it's adding context). And even if it were, it would only point out I was being hypocritical...not that "Average density" without context is pointless. is an incorrect statement. You can employ every fallacy in the book...it isn't going to work...

The solution is not to get rid of the supply, but to simply dial in the road toll amount until you get the desired traffic flow. But that's just for expressways in and out of the city. For city streets, you need to prioritize. If 50% of the users of the road (individual cars) are using 99%...

If you need proof, he keeps regularly peppering his posts with this little jab...."your narrow Toronto-centric views" He obviously has a chip, and the longer we indulge him, the more he will continue trolling.

Of course it could. But Toronto has a handicap over Vancouver....a much larger area in which to accommodate average density. And that's all you are doing when you take population and divide by land area. If it is your contention that the higher the density number is the better, then you have...

What for...the onus is on you to back up your claim by providing proof that what you listed as going on in downtown Vancouver is not going on in downtown Toronto.

Comparison of what though? A residential density figure in and of itself is meaningless without context. Total population divided by total municipal boundary area doesn't reveal anything very useful.

Except: A: Some of those things don't pertain to the specific version of downtown Vancouver you presented. You gave us a link...it has a map with specific boundaries. Stick to it. B: It doesn't matter, as none of those things you presented is evidence that it isn't also happening in...

Right...and what does it say...."23,400 new trees planted since 2010" The 10 year goal is to plant a total of 150,000 new trees by 2020. Toronto has been planting an average of 110,000 trees and intends to double it. So.... City-wide, Toronto has a tree canopy coverage of 28%, with a...

Your assumption that Toronto's ravine system does not accommodate children or is lacking family-friendly recreational facilities is wildly incorrect.

That link doesn't work. But here's an official 2014 City of Vancouver link that clearly shows the numbers of trees planted between 2010-2013. (graph on page 38) http://vancouver.ca/files/cov/Urban-Forest-Strategy-Draft.pdf

In an apples vs apples world: We would be comparing the pre-amalgamation City of Toronto, in which case Toronto is much denser. We would be comparing continuous urban area, in which case, Toronto is much denser. Or we would be comparing it at the census tract level, where Toronto will also...

...or as high as 44%. (the 8% is a small area represented by the Bay Street Corridor). Meanwhile, we know all of downtown Vancouver is 8.3% (page 10) http://vancouver.ca/files/cov/Urban-Forest-Strategy-Draft.pdf So how does this jive with your claim about downtown Vancouver being greener...

I see no grounds for such an absurd characterization. I also don't think nfitz is unappreciative of "art parks" vs "playgrounds"...it just happens to be the specific topic of a debate he was having with Ayan.

The area he is trying to pass off as "downtown" Vancouver is that BIA in the study he linked. It's just a BIA. Check the map supplied....it doesn't even include Robson Street (the main shopping district). That's because that is a separate BIA (as are Yaletown, Chinatown, Gastown). There's a...

Toronto's urban forest is pretty impressive for a city of Toronto's size. It's also considerably more impressive than Vancouver's. Vancouver's city-wide canopy cover is 18% (2013). Toronto's is 28%, but that's after the disastrous ice storm that took out huge portion of of it last winter...

All the tap dancing in the world isn't going to get you out of the little corner you've painted yourself into. We all know the gig is up, so you might as well salvage whatever dignity you have left and retract your false statements.

That's more than 6 acres (2.5 ha). Since when does a park need to be bigger than that? And if that's the case, your downtown Vancouver park fairy tale is in even bigger trouble. I'm still waiting for you to divulge the number of those 29 downtown parks you quoted that are actually located in...

Oh com'on...sure it is. No point in beating around the bush....any competent city (ie Vancouver, Montreal) would have bulldozed the eyesore that is U of T campus, and sold it to developers to replace it with a Cityplace style development.

Sorry, but I'm going to have to insist you back up your claims with actual facts, or retract them. The 29 parks listed for "downtown Vancouver" is for the actual downtown Vancouver as I pointed out earlier...Downtown plus Downtown Eastside = 579 ha (which also does not even come close to...

Except all the evidence and facts (including even what you presented LOL) does not support this theory.