News   Nov 29, 2024
Feds Match $758 Million Investments for New Line 2 Subway Trains
 408     0 
News   Nov 29, 2024
Looking Back on a Year of Construction at Amexon's Central Park
 229     0 
News   Nov 29, 2024
33-Storey St Catharines Tower Would Retain Masonic Temple
 549     0 

Roads: GTA West Corridor—Highway 413

innsertnamehere said:
What this basically means is that without the corridor the new development in Caledon and Brampton would see severe local road network congestion as people drive all the way through Brampton and Vaughan in order to access the freeway network, and they will be the biggest benefactors of the highway, but it will also reduce congestion on the existing freeway network and provide more alternate routes, which will help existing commuters.
Click to expand...

Which could be resolved by not permitting said development.

Much cheaper!
 
Northern Light said:
Which could be resolved by not permitting said development.

Much cheaper!
Click to expand...
Where do the people go then? That's about 400,000-500,000 people in that area.

I'm not sure you can reasonably expect 100% intensification in the GTA. The market isn't there for it and it doesn't have desirable quality of life outcomes.

lets be real here as well - if the highway does get cancelled, that sprawl won't. It'll just keep happening and be terribly congested.
 
innsertnamehere said:
Where do the people go then? That's about 400,000-500,000 people in that area.

I'm not sure you can reasonably expect 100% intensification in the GTA. The market isn't there for it and it doesn't have desirable quality of life outcomes.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure why you feel that way.

There's ample room when looking at the both the inner and outer burbs to intensify.

The density in parts of Toronto is high, but in many parts is quite low.

I'm not sure why quality of life can be obtained through said intensification either.

One can built mid-rise or hirise with larger suite sizes.

One can also take current one-storey big box plazas or the like, and do a mid-rise or hirise edge; but then build a reasonably dense interior of townhomes, duplexes or ever some SFH.

If the proposition works in Toronto, to take a 40ft lot with one home, and divide into two homes on 20ft lots (and it does); there I can't see a reason we can't go into ranch-home 70s suburbia and replace 60ft lot homes with 30ft for those who really want and prepared to pay for a back yard.


innsertnamehere said:
lets be real here as well - if the highway does get cancelled, that sprawl won't. It'll just keep happening and be terribly congested.
Click to expand...

That's rather defeatist.

I fundamentally disagree that it has to be that way.

We cannot only add everything that isn't white belt to the Greenbelt; we can also downzone a good chunk of the white belt into Greenbelt.

And

We should.
 
Last edited:
innsertnamehere said:
Where do the people go then? That's about 400,000-500,000 people in that area.

I'm not sure you can reasonably expect 100% intensification in the GTA. The market isn't there for it and it doesn't have desirable quality of life outcomes.

lets be real here as well - if the highway does get cancelled, that sprawl won't. It'll just keep happening and be terribly congested.
Click to expand...
agreed
Northern Light said:
I'm not sure why you feel that way.

There's ample room when looking at the both the inner and outer burbs to intensify.

The density in parts of Toronto is high, but in many parts is quite low.

I'm not why quality of life can be obtained through said intensification either.

One can built mid-rise or hirise with larger suite sizes.

One can also take current one-storey big box plazas or the like, and do a mid-rise or hirise edge; but then build a reasonably dense interior of townhomes, duplexes or ever some SFH.

If the proposition works in Toronto, to take a 40ft lot with one home, and divide into two homes on 20ft lots (and it does); there I can't see a reason we can't go into ranch-home 70s suburbia and replace 60ft lot homes with 30ft for those who really want and prepared to pay for a back yard.




That's rather defeatist.

I fundamentally disagree that it has to be that way.

We cannot only add everything that isn't white belt to the Greenbelt; we can also downzone a good chunk of the white belt into Greenbelt.

And

We should.
Click to expand...
you are being too idealist though.
yes, sure, toronto COULD intensify further.
but given the suburban growth we've seen, many people newly settling in the GTA WANT houses. That's the lifestyle they desire. You can't simply say hey, please buy a condo so that Toronto can intensify. Humans are inherently selfish. If they don't want it, they don't want it.
 
Student99 said:
agreed

you are being too idealist though.
yes, sure, toronto COULD intensify further.
but given the suburban growth we've seen, many people newly settling in the GTA WANT houses. That's the lifestyle they desire. You can't simply say hey, please buy a condo so that Toronto can intensify. Humans are inherently selfish. If they don't want it, they don't want it.
Click to expand...

If you don't provide it, as a matter of law, they will have to deal.
 
Student99 said:
but given the suburban growth we've seen, many people newly settling in the GTA WANT houses.
Click to expand...
People want space and more space per dollar. Which is why we’re starting to see outflows past Peel now, and into KW etc.

It’s a pricing and unit size problem, and we’re boxing ourselves into this situation by preventing upzoning, lot splitting, multi-units etc. We absolutely can fit way, way more into the current developed land without everyone living in tiny apartments:
 
Pretty stunning stuff from Vaughan, particularly following Misissauga and Caledon. Noor Javed's subsequent tweets eplained it was a 5-4 split with the local, ward councillors voting against and the regional councillors + mayor voting for the highway (and she corrected her EXPECTED to UNEXPECTED).

When you've lost Vaughan council, you're really fighting uphill. There might be enough backroom support to get this thing through but it's clearly wildly unpopular with ordinary joes/voters.

One thing we've learned through this whole Ford era is that if there's one issue that pretty much everyone in Ontario seems to agree with it's that we shouldn't be building stuff in the Greenbelt.
 
Last edited:
TJ O'Pootertoot said:
Pretty stunning stuff from Vaughan, particularly following Misissauga and Caledon. Noor Javed's subsequent tweets eplained it was a 5-4 split with the local, ward councillors voting against and the regional councillors + mayor voting for the highway (and she corrected her EXPECTEd to UNEXPECTED).

When you've lost Vaughan council, you're really fighting uphill. There might be enough backroom support to get this thing through but it's clearly wildly unpopular with ordinary joes/voters.

One thing we've learned through this whole Ford era is that if there's one issue that prety much everyone in Ontario seems to agree with it's that we shouldn't be building stuff in the Greenbelt.
Click to expand...
This is almost as much of a watershed as killing Spadina Expressway.
 
We take away the 413 plan, and in exactly 20 years from now it will be brought back up with an even bigger issue to follow. This is why we don’t get anywhere with anythhing, and if we move forward with this project, give it 5 years and everyone will be praising it.
 
It’s nowhere near done yet. The Ford government has become slightly less supportive, but they haven’t killed the plan.
 
anb said:
We take away the 413 plan, and in exactly 20 years from now it will be brought back up with an even bigger issue to follow. This is why we don’t get anywhere with anythhing, and if we move forward with this project, give it 5 years and everyone will be praising it.
Click to expand...
At the very least the ROW should be protected.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top