kettal
Banned
![kj2ni.png](http://imgur.com/kj2ni.png)
Here's a more useful map, which indeed shows Malvern to have below average income levels.
Kinda proves my point. Put the two maps together, and you will see that the subway is definitely not guaranteed to generate wealth for an area. East of about Coxwell, the subway clearly hasn't done anything to raise neighbourhood income levels, nor between about Bathurst and Keele. In the east end, the subway hasn't even been successful at holding incomes steady.
![]()
Here's a more useful map, which indeed shows Malvern to have below average income levels.
![]()
Here's a more useful map, which indeed shows Malvern to have below average income levels.
Where are these? I live in this area, and I haven't noticed anything that dense, west of Main.Mainly because east of Coxwell along the Danforth it is a series of very dense social housing projects.
That also explains most of the other low income areas, subway or none.Mainly because east of Coxwell along the Danforth it is a series of very dense social housing projects. You can't place social housing there and then wonder why the median income doesn't increase when you put a subway there!
And east of Victoria Park, the subway is of very little benefit to the majority of the people who live along there, unless you happen to live right by one of the stations placed very far apart. Living next to those sections of the B-D subway is more like living next to a rail corridor than a subway corridor.
Malvern's median income (ward 42) is above the city's median income.
Mainly because east of Coxwell along the Danforth it is a series of very dense social housing projects. You can't place social housing there and then wonder why the median income doesn't increase when you put a subway there! And east of Victoria Park, the subway is of very little benefit to the majority of the people who live along there, unless you happen to live right by one of the stations placed very far apart. Living next to those sections of the B-D subway is more like living next to a rail corridor than a subway corridor.
You've very clearly pointed out why subways through low density suburbs are a bad idea. Initially they run through districts of single family homes, with only a few hundred people within walking distance of each station. Other people can take feeder buses, but most people in that situation will just continue to drive to work. Thus we are left with a hugely expensive subway line that no one uses.
Subway stations need high density towers to justify themselves, and the combined pressure of developers wanting cash in and the city wanting to increase ridership leads the city to permit such towers. This is fine downtown where most things are in walking distance and people are happy to live in condo towers. If you can get enough towers in one place, like North York City Centre and to a lesser degree Scarbrough City Centre you can also create a functional neighbourhood.
But what often happens are isolated tower clusters appear next to the subway, but they have access to none of the pedestrian accessible neighbourhood services of the core. You thus end up with districts like Main Square and Crescent Town. Tower clusters isolated from their surroundings and filled with people unable to afford to live elsewhere.
Very true ... but of that era? The design for the quarry lands on the NE corner of Gerrard and Victoria Park seems very similiar to Crescent Town ... and that might not be completed until the 2020s. I'm not sure it's just a function of the era.If you think Main Square is isolated, you need to take a tour of suburban Toronto. The lack of nearby pedestrian conveniences in a place like Crescent Town has nothing to do with the subway and everything to do with the urban design ideology of the era.
At least Main Square and Crescent Town have good transit and they can get almost anywhere in the city in less than an hour. Would you rather these apartments and the fairly poor people who tend to live in them be stuck at Kipling and Steeles or way out on Lawrence East? If you think Main Square is isolated, you need to take a tour of suburban Toronto. The lack of nearby pedestrian conveniences in a place like Crescent Town has nothing to do with the subway and everything to do with the urban design ideology of the era.
Very true ... but of that era? The design for the quarry lands on the NE corner of Gerrard and Victoria Park seems very similiar to Crescent Town ... and that might not be completed until the 2020s. I'm not sure it's just a function of the era.
Agreed, the crumbling towers without transit access are in even worse shape. Which is why providing improved transit to Malvern, Jane/Finch, and Rexdale needs to be the priority for any plan. Most subway based plans, such as Thomson's, completely neglect these areas.
Sure it is ... it just seems very similiar to the Gerrard/Clonmore project. Buildings surrounded by grass and parking lots. No retaill. Set way, way, way back from any street. I only disagree that this is a thing of the past.Uh, yeah, it's a function of the era. An era when apartment towers surrounded by grass ('nature') and parking lots and separated from everything else was the residential ideal (and a practical ideal, too, given the need to house Toronto's ballooning population 40 or so years ago). This is common knowledge.
Sure it is ... it just seems very similiar to the Gerrard/Clonmore project. Buildings surrounded by grass and parking lots. No retaill. Set way, way, way back from any street. I only disagree that this is a thing of the past.
See page 12 of http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2008/sc/bgrd/backgroundfile-16035.pdf