Allen Road/Spadina Subway Urbanization

[rpgr]

But doesn't Eglinton and Black Creek in effect serve as highways through the York Centre area? That's why I think decking Black Creek over would create new commercial/residential units and draw people over from Weston and Keelesdale. If a subway line went as far as this point, there might not even be a need for continuence west on Eglinton, if the line were interlined with Geogretown GO. Hence an abridged Blue 22 that serves a local purpose as well.

I wouldn't exactly call Eglinton or Black Creek "highways".

 

[interchange42]

Should this go here or in Toronto Issues?

I have moved this thread to Toronto Issues to try to get it back on track regarding building housing over the Spadina trench.

42

 

[interchange42]

Well, I think it's a good idea, I wonder if it's not a little too soon for something like this. After all, we are still in the process of filling in parking lots in downtown that are only steps from subway stops. Is there really enough demand out there for high density living at this point?

Sure. Look at all the development along Sheppard. This also has the benefit of being on a direct route downtown, with no need to change trains. Residences here would be snapped up for that reason.

42

 

[ShonTron]

It's rather unfortunate, though that around Glencairn specifically, the little bungalows and splits have been knocked down and replaced with shitty stucco-clad McMansions. And I can see the architecturally tasteless residents putting up a hell of a fight. (No wonder the ridership at Glencairn is so low, and only has a M-F limited service bus as well).

I really think the idea would be perfect for rethinking Lawrence Heights (and include Lawrence Square in that as well).

 

[interchange42]

I agree with CDL.TO and ShonTrons that Hume's hyperbole is unhelpful again here: Hume is perpetuating the myth that no-one rides the Spadina line.

I agree with Unimaginative regarding the Sheppard comment. When the time comes for Hume to talk about Concord Park Place in some other article, he'll trot out how good the Sheppard line has been for urbanizing the area.

Regarding who would want to live above an expressway? The land above arteries like this can be made more appealing. Covering over the highway entirely will remove noise from the surrounding area as well, and venting of noxious gases (carbon monoxide mostly I suppose) can be done up through the core of buildings going in up above.

I think the real question regarding what got built above is "what would the neighbours want?" For sure this would trigger NIMBYism like mad. "This would add too much traffic" would be a typical refrain, and any development would add traffic despite the subway access. Would the decrease in highway noise and repair of the urban fabric offset the increased traffic on local roads though? Only your local NIMBY knows for sure...

42

 

[Tuscani01]

Hume, Hume, Hume...

Under capacity sure, but "woefully underused"...? My local station is St. Clair West and I can't get on a southbound train during morning rush hour. They are packed up against the doors... I am talking Yonge northbound at College at 5:20pm packed. Every second train short-turns at St. Clair West during this period, but that still makes for a frequency of better than every 5 minutes north of St. Clair W. I can't help but think of Scaberian's comments about how strange things are in this city that anything less than overcapacity is seen as a failure.

My local station is Eglinton West, and I have the exact same problem in the morning. At least you guys at St. Clair West get some short turns.

There are always people left behind at Eglinton West thanks to packed trains.

 

[rpgr]

My local station is Eglinton West, and I have the exact same problem in the morning. At least you guys at St. Clair West get some short turns.

There are always people left behind at Eglinton West thanks to packed trains.

Trust me, Eglinton East doesn't always fare much better either.

Nowadays I just wake up a bit earlier.

I'm still not sold on building over highways to be honest. What happens after 50 years when maintenance is needed? Looking at bridges they don't fare to well. Building on flat ground you wouldn't notice these problems. In any case I'd be wary having to drive under a 10000 tonne condo or the like. It only takes 1 engineering or building oopsie in an area I'm sure most builders are unfamiliar with to cause an unmitigated disaster.

 

[Edward]

The subway already goes under a lot of buildings so what's the problem with building above a subway and a highway?

 

[interchange42]

Attention has to be paid to maintain structures that are built over other things all through their life. That doesn't stop us from building bridges and cantilevering the odd building or bit of a building though. As long as the buildings are properly designed and maintained there's nothing to worry about.

42

 

[Conrad Black]

They should have rezoned everything a five minute walk from Eglinton W., Glencairn and Lawrence W years ago for a mixture of medium and high density. They have some of the west side so why not the east side?

 

[Tewder]

As a country, Canada is just very sparesly populated. Second biggest country in the world yet people per acre is really small (even taking into account nobody wants to live in the frigid north).

Urban planning doesn't usually deal with Canada as a whole, which as you say is huge. The Canadian reality, on the other hand, is in fact very urban. The vast majority of us live in three or four major urban clusters which each on its own is exremely dense. Aren't there parts of Vancouver that are among the most dense in North America? Relevent urban planning must take this into consideration.

 

[MisterF]

One thing I've always noticed about "city planners" is that they tend to want a centralization of things. Sure it works in small countries and small areas but not one single planner ever takes into account the huge "landmess" (yes, pun intended) the GTA is. As a country, Canada is just very sparesly populated. Second biggest country in the world yet people per acre is really small (even taking into account nobody wants to live in the frigid north).

A lot of these so-called "city planners" seem to take into a Europeon or East Asian approach into compacting people as much as possible. Problem is there is so-much sprawl around the GTA because we can (should is a different matter).

The fact that most of Canada is almost uninhabited is irrelevant. By that logic Moscow and Sydney should be the sprawliest cities in the world. Southern Ontario's population density is comparable to much of Europe.

 

[samsonyuen]

Cool idea. It could be Concord MetroPlace.

 

[casaguy]

Zeidler's suggestion, brilliant in its simplicity, is to build over the highway and fill it on both sides with mid-rise residential towers, townhouses and green space. As he points out, there's room for tens of thousands of residents, all of them living on top of a metro.

I love this idea. It seems like a no-brainer (and it's what should be done to cover that vast rail expanse on the north side of CityPlace).

But after reading everyone else's issues during rush hour... How will the existing system handle another 10-20 thousand riders who have easy access to the Spadina line? Doesn't the subway "network" need to be expanded first (or at least joined somehow along Sheppard) for there to be an attractive option for those living over top of an existing line?

Why would I buy a condo that's built over the Allen Expressway if I knew I would always be waiting and waiting and waiting and waiting for a train to come that had enough room for me to squeeze on to at the beginning and end of my day?

 

[afransen]

Wouldn't increasing frequencies on the line address the capacity issue?