bobbob911
Active Member
No offence, but if you tried to run a DRL above ground through Leslieville you would have the exact same reactions. The people of scarborough are not unique in their NIMBYism......
|
|
|
No offence, but if you tried to run a DRL above ground through Leslieville you would have the exact same reactions. The people of scarborough are not unique in their NIMBYism......
To be fair, Leslieville doesn't have a relatively wide and straight shot ROW where such a surface subway could easily be placed, unless you count the existing rail corridor. If there was a wide hydro corridor running through that area, you can bet that there would be quite a few transit proposals to use it.
bobbob911
Active Member
The original messages (mine and the other) were talking expropriations, and how that would be politically difficult - in Scarborough or anywhere else. There isn't a viable wide hydro corridor for the SSE either.....
My mistake. There is one though, the Gatineau Hydro corridor, which cuts diagonally through Scarborough. Theoretically it could be used for part of a SSE.
Napoleon
Active Member
Do any TTC platforms have heated shelters/platforms?
dowlingm
Senior Member
The Gatineau corridor is north of Kennedy. Can't get to there without smashing up the existing station and rerouting. Helps you get more east than north, and you gotta pay Hydro One for the land just like the one at York U.
sixrings
Senior Member
If that were true downtown wouldn't be booming. I'm pretty sure all the 1920s houses on my street have washer and dryers as well as having had teenagers at one point.this is not even factoring how people raise kids in denser cities like new York, London or Tokyo. The point is that it will always be challenging financially and strategically to serve less dense areas of the city, so people need to be realistic in their expectations of the service and how fast it can be implemented
Palma
Senior Member
Spadina is above ground for 3 stops as soon as it leaves Eglinton. Do you see people complaining there?
rbt
Senior Member
Not that I'm aware of. The examples shown are pretty standard for recent GO construction though; so you don't need to leave to GTA to find them.
Palma
Senior Member
It does not matter. Less kids today yet bigger homes. Does not make sense. The basement can be renovated for a study and extra washroom. Whats wrose are those house renos where they insist on cramming a "family room" on the main level next to the kitchen which should really be a large table with chairs to eat on. What they use to call "eat-in kitchen" Put the family room in basement along with study
Who wants sofa so close to stove and how dirty it will get with grease. I just finished cleaning my dining/living room walls and there is a door leading from dining room to kitchen which I keep closed and another double French doors in hallway to living room which I keep closed during cooking. Yet those walls were dirty (I will admit its been 2 years since I last cleaned them. But I could only imagine a sofa that you cannot put into washer
crs1026
Superstar
Be careful with generalizations.
If somebody decides to tear down their 1952 1500 sq foot house and put up a 4000 sq foot model with no back yard, that's not relevant to a debate on transit, because it's still the same number of houses on the street. Whereas if someone takes their 1912 semi detached house off Roncesvalles, which has been divided into flats for the last five decades, and turns it back into a single family dwelling, now you actually have a decrease in density and it matters to transit. That is actually happening, by the way. If the local strip mall has been redeveloped as condos and townhomes, the suburban density is going up and their roads are filling up, while the density in the old City is falling (except for condo development).
I think young families deciding they can't get along without a huge island kitchen with granite counter tops, and taking out a humungous mortgage to get one, is absurd.... but that's none of our business, and it's irrelevant to transit. Unless you change density, or ridership, or traffic, people can do whatever. Those big homes pay more taxes, after all.
- Paul
If somebody decides to tear down their 1952 1500 sq foot house and put up a 4000 sq foot model with no back yard, that's not relevant to a debate on transit, because it's still the same number of houses on the street. Whereas if someone takes their 1912 semi detached house off Roncesvalles, which has been divided into flats for the last five decades, and turns it back into a single family dwelling, now you actually have a decrease in density and it matters to transit. That is actually happening, by the way. If the local strip mall has been redeveloped as condos and townhomes, the suburban density is going up and their roads are filling up, while the density in the old City is falling (except for condo development).
I think young families deciding they can't get along without a huge island kitchen with granite counter tops, and taking out a humungous mortgage to get one, is absurd.... but that's none of our business, and it's irrelevant to transit. Unless you change density, or ridership, or traffic, people can do whatever. Those big homes pay more taxes, after all.
- Paul
bobbob911
Active Member
Downtown is booming mostly from condos, which as I said are rarely designed for families (1br and 2br are typical). Quite frankly, I think you will find it is rare for families to live downtown in Manhattan, London, or Tokyo, unless they are wealthy.
Statistically we might be having fewer children than before, but I guarantee you the most typical family still has two kids, same as it has been for a long time.
I'm not sure if you've ever seen the basement of an original downtown house - they are usually less than 6' ceiling height, often make of stone rubble foundation, and sometimes have a dirt floor. Not exactly study material!! And as I said above, downtown is booming because of condos - the amount of semi/detached housing downtown has probably not changed in 20+ years (if anything it has gotten substantially less)
nfitz
Superstar
That's what we did ... so instead of 2-people living in 2 apartments, we have 4 people in one house. Oh, wait - that increased the density ...
sixrings
Senior Member
For context sake i live near eglinton west station and many of the houses are bungalows. If someone wants to buy one and rip it down and put up a mansion they are still going to be close to transit. My point is the the outer suburbs which was made to accommodate these houses were not designed with transit in mind. And now we are at a situation where the people in the suburbs need to use transit which is good. All I am saying is that there has to be a realistic expectation of how fast and how much money all that will cost. Im tired of people from the suburbs saying it is the ones from the city who are looking down on them, when in reality they are the ones saying there is no way I could possibly live in a denser area with less square footage.
coffey1
Active Member
Ive heard that opinion as well & ive also heard many other differing opinions in the City. Scarborough is a mixed bag.
Let's be clear I DONT generalize everyone from downtown as a LEFTY or POLITICALLY shallow whatsoever. I take offense & aim to this City's Left media's slant & any of those that follow them blindly as the experts.
It's just ridiculous to generalize Scarborough citizens with BS sterotypes. It's not Leslieville it's a LARGE diverse area. Its this same small minded thinking that brought us poorly designed & funded hacked in LRT lines which failed to integrate Scarborough Center in an effective manner & wouldnt provide seamless or any local transit through the heart of this big area.
Thank God Tory is a Centrist and might actually get something decent buiit under his set of "experts"
Last edited: