Toronto 522 Royal York | 124.25m | 37s | Queenscorp | Turner Fleischer

Amare said:
I see the goal is to really clog up Royal York Road with traffic it cannot handle. This is yet another example of over-densification on a site where it's unwarranted. We dont even see these heights along The Queensway in this area, but yet they're pushing for it here?

The MTSA isnt a good justification for all this density here either, no one is walking from here to Mimico GO, let's be honest with ourselves.
Click to expand...
Completely! Nothing on the Queensway matches this scale. No townhouses, no multi-plex units. All towers in an area surrounded with 2-3 story homes.
 
As always, mad at the wrong thing.

Undead said:
You're angry at the wrong thing.

If we want a more livable city, there are a few government policies which need to be changed.

First and foremost, the incentive to develop needs to go. And that's our excessive population growth. But good luck getting the government to stop that.

Otherwise, the only other useful initiative is thoughtfully changing zoning in low density areas. If we make it easier to add moderate density around detached houses, we can reduce the pressure on sites like this to be as dense as possible.

Also, if you're angry with this, wait till you see what they have planned for that entire Langstaff area!
Click to expand...
 
Undead said:
As always, mad at the wrong thing.
Click to expand...
I'm not angry. I'm simply stating facts and yes the city laws have everything to do with this. As with everything with city development the infrastructure is lagging decades behind. There is no thought or planning as to how a neighborhood should be developed of grow. The builders run wild and free doing what they like. Toronto city Council is a joke. Just listen to most of the would be mayors 🙄
 
Without a doubt, our infrastructure lags behind. But it won't ever catch up. The way we do things have been hijacked to ensure that never happens.

As you alluded to, the government, who's at the beck and call of developers and banks, doesn't care if an area doesn't have infrastructure to support development.

The real estate mob in this country needs more people to buy more housing so that's why the Feds keep pumping people into the country and money into the economy.

If you're concerned about infrastructure, that's where you need to start. Opposing any given project doesn't move the dial.
 
Sonanta said:
Please join us tomorrow and support this development

toronto.webex.com

Meet virtually with Cisco Webex. Anytime, anywhere, on any device.

Simple, modern video meetings for everyone on the world's most popular and trusted collaboration platform.
toronto.webex.com toronto.webex.com
Click to expand...
I'm curious what the play is here? What is the motivation to put 967 new units in a place with no higher order transit and no plans to introduce it, either on the table or even just conceptually? The answer, obviously, is your over 1:1 parking ratio (978 new spaces), but is that an appropriate response in 2023 when we're well on the way to lighting the entire planet on fire?
 
ProjectEnd said:
I'm curious what the play is here? What is the motivation to put 967 new units in a place with no higher order transit and no plans to introduce it, either on the table or even just conceptually? The answer, obviously, is your over 1:1 parking ratio (978 new spaces), but is that an appropriate response in 2023 when we're well on the way to lighting the entire planet on fire?
Click to expand...

Reminds me of that planning report on Westney in one respect; where some of the rationale reads as 'because we can'.
 
ProjectEnd said:
I'm curious what the play is here? What is the motivation to put 967 new units in a place with no higher order transit and no plans to introduce it, either on the table or even just conceptually? The answer, obviously, is your over 1:1 parking ratio (978 new spaces), but is that an appropriate response in 2023 when we're well on the way to lighting the entire planet on fire?
Click to expand...
I mean, you already know it's because the federal government keeps endlessly juicing your industry since 2010. Why play coy?
 
Immigration and interest rates. 2010 was when we recovered from 2008, (edit: probably a bit later, in 2012, but the point remains the same) but interest rates stayed artificially low. Again, you know all this. Don't play coy.
 
ProjectEnd said:
The feds are 'juicing' a provincially and municipally controlled industry? Also, why 2010? What changed in that year?
Click to expand...

I wouldn't get hung up on any one year, or any one policy; but yes, very clearly a series of Federal policies have been put in place to stimulate and sustain demand for housing in such a manner as to sustain, and perpetually raise prices.

This can be seen, in part, by the fact that housing prices have similarly spiked in other parts of the country, though outside of Vancouver, not quite as acutely.

Policies playing a role:

1) Vast increases in Temporary Foreign Workers (often exploited and under-paid in service / entry level jobs);

2) Vast increases in foreign students

3) Continued existence of REITs as a class of corporations

4) First time home-buyer incentives and credits, including special savings accounts.

5) Federally supported mortgage insurance through CMHC which incents the banks to make loans to those who would otherwise not qualify and who have insufficient downpayment.

6) Allowing people to 'borrow' from their RRSPs for the purpose of a down payment

7) Lowering the tax threshold for capital gains to 50% inclusion (obviously this goes back to the 90s, but its still in effect)

8) Quietly extending terms of amortization for mortgages to up to 40 years in order to prevent 'under water' mortgages from going into default and tanking the banks, CMHC and the market.

9) The decision in the first place to allow comparatively short and variable mortgages to a level few other countries in the OECD do. Most require 5-year or greater fixed-rate terms.

10) The interest rate question is a bit more complex, as international rates, particularly the U.S. rate has an effect on BoC choices, as a higher rate in Canada has the effect of increasing the value of the Canadian Dollar which impacts trade. That said, One cannot reasonably argue that near zero interest rates for an extended period is a well considered policy choice.


That is a fair bit of 'juice'
 
SavT said:
A great example of a development that totally disregards the current existing neighborhood of single owner houses and low rise buildings, with no thought to keeping to the existing elements with additional townhouses and low to mid-rise structures. This is the kind of development you would expect in downtown Toronto, not in a residential neighborhood of houses. Bringing 1075 additional vehicle traffic in an area already traffic congested, transit full buses at rush hour. An slap in the face of residents of this area bringing no value other than $$$$ to Queenscorp. It will be a shame if the city approves this without big changes in design, structure and height to suit the neighborhood.
Click to expand...
the existing elements are crappy post war bungalows and under utilized industrial land. The solution to traffic is a reduction in parking spaces, not reducing the number of people we try to accommodate.
 
jmi22 said:
the existing elements are crappy post war bungalows and under utilized industrial land. The solution to traffic is a reduction in parking spaces, not reducing the number of people we try to accommodate.
Click to expand...

I would say the solution to traffic is for people to simply drive less. At the moment, I am car-less, and I really notice the high percentage of cars with only one person in the vehicle. I think I realize now how much I was using the car instead of walking or using the TTC, simply because I had it.

I kind of feel that most people with cars have the same myopia.

I do agree, that, despite the increase in population, we should be providing less facilities for driving. Or certainly don't add more. Maybe people will adjust, but sadly, it seems that drivers simply complain more and more about congestion - AS THEY ADD TO IT.

In this location, if more development is planned, then the TTC will have to improve in the area. As it is, I don't think the Queensway is served well enough.
 
Alex L said:
I would say the solution to traffic is for people to simply drive less. At the moment, I am car-less, and I really notice the high percentage of cars with only one person in the vehicle. I think I realize now how much I was using the car instead of walking or using the TTC, simply because I had it.

I kind of feel that most people with cars have the same myopia.

I do agree, that, despite the increase in population, we should be providing less facilities for driving. Or certainly don't add more. Maybe people will adjust, but sadly, it seems that drivers simply complain more and more about congestion - AS THEY ADD TO IT.

In this location, if more development is planned, then the TTC will have to improve in the area. As it is, I don't think the Queensway is served well enough.
Click to expand...
yep, tons of density going in on the queensway but the 80 bus comes once an hour off peak and during rush hour the service is still atrocious. The long term provincial transit plan has some vague crayoning of the Ontario line west going along the queensway, which I think is a great idea.
 
jmi22 said:
yep, tons of density going in on the queensway but the 80 bus comes once an hour off peak and during rush hour the service is still atrocious. The long term provincial transit plan has some vague crayoning of the Ontario line west going along the queensway, which I think is a great idea.
Click to expand...
You'll never convince drivers with off-peak service like that. Chicken and egg thing I think.

If developers who are friends with Doug whisper enough in his ear, an Ontario line extension could happen ... but even an LRT like Finch West might work here and be really beneficial.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top