News   May 03, 2024
Assembly's Blueprint for Sustainable Urban Living in the GTHA
 850     1 
News   May 03, 2024
RAD's State of the Market 2024 to Feature Talks on AI and Real Estate
 531     0 
News   May 03, 2024
Congratulations to our Avontuura Guides Winners!
 262     0 

Roads: Gardiner Expressway

Except your choice is just as artificial, as a result of policies that are laden with values.

In addition, removal of the Gardiner does not eliminate the choice of driving - that option still exist.

AoD
 
AlvinofDiaspar said:
BTW, that's NOT a concrete factory - it's an abandoned silo.
Click to expand...

Ok, that thing. It's been derelict for so long I have no recollection of its actual purpose.

I am quite aware of the location of both relative to the edge of the water (vs. the ambiguous term "waterfront") So are you saying that the presence of a relatively small structure like the silo have a greater impact on the developability of that stretch of land, vs. the Gardiner?
Click to expand...

You tell me. I see plenty of condos built up against the Gardiner, along Lake Shore and Queen's Quay. I don't see any near that Silo.
 
Come now - that's because the area has just been rezoned for non-industrial purposes, plus being located in a flood zone (and actually, there is a freeze on development on the site - that's in spite of the fact that I can recall at least two proposals from the private sector).

If you want a more interesting indicator of effect of the Expressway - you should take a look at whether the majority of structures along the Gardiner actually actively uses that side of the building.

AoD
 
AlvinofDiaspar said:
Except your choice is just as artificial, as a result of policies that are laden with values.
Click to expand...

I'm not biting. Removing the Gardiner to make traffic worse, so that people 'artificially' find transit more convenient is not, in my mind, equal to the 'artificiality' of constructing highways and giving people mobility options.

One will always be about removing options, the other will always be about increasing them.

In addition, removal of the Gardiner does not eliminate the choice of driving - that option still exist.
Click to expand...

Just as keeping the Gardiner does not eliminate the ability to develop the lands surrounding it.
 
AlvinofDiaspar said:
Come now - that's because the area has just been rezoned for non-industrial purposes, plus being located in a flood zone (and actually, there is a freeze on development on the site - that's in spite of the fact that I can recall at least two proposals from the private sector).
Click to expand...

So then why did you write this:

So are you saying that the presence of a relatively small structure like the silo have a greater impact on the developability AND desirability of that stretch of land, vs. the Gardiner?
Click to expand...




If you want a more interesting indicator of effect of the Expressway - you should take a look at whether the majority of structures along the Gardiner actually actively uses that side of the building.
Click to expand...

Why would they face the buildings toward the Gardiner when they can face the lake instead?
 
Oh really? By allowing the Gardiner to stay up, you removes the option of developing a superior urban form that is more conductive to other modes of movement, such as walking or cycling. And that's on top of removing the option of an urban environment with addition density and other benefits.

I suppose if you value driving about those, that's your call. But don't tell me it's about increasing options.

AoD
 
TKTKTK said:
Well, no, actually it doesn't. The section of the Gardiner we're talking about is either against the channel, or it's running pressed up against the rail embankment. There is no shortage of develop able land right now in that area, and any suggestion that the Gardiner is what's slowing progress is entirely disingenuous. The area is a wasteland because it's, well, an industrial wasteland.

The Gardiner, not being on the waterfront, is not standing in the way of its revitalization. Now, that derelict cement factory...why aren't Condos being built right next door?!
Click to expand...

The value and shape of developmental land is affected quite a bit by the presence of an ugly, loud, elevated highway right next door. It's not like you're all of the sudden going to see extra room for all sorts of new projects, but the land that's there WILL suddenly look a whole lot more interesting to developers. Which is the aim.


Really? Because I believe Monderman has cut off the leg you're trying to stand on.
Click to expand...

I'm not really sure what the shared space approach has to do with the point I made. I was referring to urban planning at a higher level. A lot of municipal government is social engineering. Zoning is social engineering. The "Official Plan" is social engineering. A libertarian approach would just see people build stuff wherever they thought it would make them the most money. I'm not even sure how you'd run public transit in a free-market system: would each token cost twenty bucks?
 
This thread in a nutshell.

dutycallsnl3.png
 
AlvinofDiaspar said:
Oh really? By allowing the Gardiner to stay up, you removes the option of developing a superior urban form that is more conductive to other modes of movement, such as walking or cycling. And that's on top of removing the option of an urban environment with addition density and other benefits.

I suppose if you value driving about those, that's your call. But don't tell me it's about increasing options.
Click to expand...

"Superior Urban Form" isn't anything tangible, It's marketing.

I do enjoy how you're arguing for decreasing options, even while fooling yourself into thinking you're increasing them :D
 
GraphicMatt said:
The value and shape of developmental land is affected quite a bit by the presence of an ugly, loud, elevated highway right next door. It's not like you're all of the sudden going to see extra room for all sorts of new projects, but the land that's there WILL suddenly look a whole lot more interesting to developers. Which is the aim.
Click to expand...

See AOD's description for why the area is currently undeveloped. Note how the Gardiner doesn't play a role.




I'm not really sure what the shared space approach has to do with the point I made. I was referring to urban planning at a higher level. A lot of municipal government is social engineering. Zoning is social engineering. The "Official Plan" is social engineering. A libertarian approach would just see people build stuff wherever they thought it would make them the most money.
Click to expand...

Sorry, you wrote only a one-sentence comment about:
"Libertarian or free-market thinking doesn't really hold when you look at urban planning"

and so i pointed to an example of Libertarian thinking in urban planning. I hadn't realized it was only urban planning on a higher level you were talking about.

I'm not even sure how you'd run public transit in a free-market system: would each token cost twenty bucks?
Click to expand...

I thought that's how most public transit services began? First as private enterprise, then nationalized (or provincialized?).
 
I thought that's how most public transit services began? First as private enterprise, then nationalized (or provincialized?).
Click to expand...

You can thank the government kowtowing to the car lobby and building miles of suburban freeways back in the 1960s for that.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top