Erin Erin Glen | ?m | ?s | Solmar

LemonCondo said:
Click to expand...
these videos are always quite disinegnous, particularly in a Canadian suburb context. They also tend to vastly misrepresent a typical European suburb.

A typical european suburb is not nearly that attractive nor transit supportive.

This is more typical - an average suburb of Nantes, France:

1676663839075.png


While the stereotypical Canadian suburb is more like this, which is probably just as ugly and not much lower density:

1676663919770.png
 
Northern Light said:
No one is disagreeing with you on this point.

What you keep missing is the distinction between want and fulfillment.

You may want to own a Lambo, but if your budget doesn't allow for it, then you don't get to have one.

You may want to date some hollywood actress whose appearance attracts you; but you don't know her, or her family/friends or agent, so you don't even get to ask her out, let alone get a yes.

Simply wanting does not make something so.

In this context fulfilling that want (sprawl) is irresponsible, and unethical. Self-discipline is in order.

Moreover, do you expect people to commute from Owen Sound to Toronto every day? Or even to K-W? There simply isn't the employment opportunity out there (yet); and the commute isn't just bad for the environment and requiring vast subsidies in infrastructure (and therefore higher taxes) it's also taxing on family and leisure time to commute 60, 70 or 80 minutes each way.

The trade-offs are not reasonable.

Ultimately, if you're not rich, or upper-middle-class and you want an SFH lifestyle, you will have to choose an area to live other than the GTA or Metro Vancouver. Those two markets in Canada simply won't sustain it.



The government has not set aside any vast reserve of public land for development, they have permitted 'white belt' lands to develop. I would argue too much of that, and would like to see some of that reversed (downzoned) but I digress. There is no 'plan' for unending sprawl, merely a provincial government that's marginally indifferent, at least where its 'friends' are involved.
Click to expand...

Of course none of you are going agree about expanding the suburbs. You get a kick at observing new skyscrapers, etc coming in on Urbantoronto every day as well as I do! But what makes you think 100% of the work force travels to the city and back. Some of them live and work in the same area they're located at in the GTA regions. Which will become more transit sufficient in the future connecting with the major city. Just as sprawling could create a problem in the future. An overkill of skyscraper towers in the city. Could also create some social problems etc as well in the future. like we've never seen before as it transforms like NYC. There's also an article on the CBC talking about the government setting aside 14000 hectares of land to be developed if you want to take a look at it. As you can see the government has to spread and intensify to accommodate the projected 5 million more people in Greater Golden Horseshoe in the next 20 to 25 years. And there's no way they can all be in condos. That insane some people want to have some sort of privacy owning their home on land!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
cd concept said:
Of course none of you are going agree about expanding the suburbs. You get a kick at observing new skyscrapers, etc coming in on Urbantoronto every day as well as I do! But what makes you think 100% of the work force travels to the city and back. Some of them live and work in the same area they're located at in the GTA regions. Which will become more transit sufficient in the future connecting with the major city. Just as sprawling could create a problem in the future. An overkill of skyscraper towers in the city. Could also create some social problems etc as well in the future. like we've never seen before as it transforms like NYC. There's also an article on the CBC talking about the government setting aside 14000 hectares of land to be developed if you want to take a look at it. As you can see the government has to spread and intensify to accommodate the projected 5 million more people in Greater Golden Horseshoe in the next 20 to 25 years. And there's no way they can all be in condos. That insane some people want to have some sort of privacy owning their home on land!
Click to expand...

You keep not understanding. You keep assigning 'preference' where I've explicitly debunked this notion and given you all sorts of info.

Stop! If you want to be treated with respect, as someone who has an understanding of these things, stop assigning motive and spend more time brushing up on the facts.

Read posts carefully. Do research. You seem to think you're talking to people with about the same level of knowledge as yourself, with great respect, that is not so.

It doesn't mean everyone here is in the industry or government (though many are); nor that all of us are 'right' all the time. But most of us do have some idea what we're talking about, and you keep repeating yourself as if that fixes everything. It doesn't.

Edit to add: This is the story you were talking about: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toro...es-doug-ford-want-the-greenbelt-too-1.6647857

It doesn't contradict anything I, or others have said here, except you.

You didn't read the story properly.

I'm not being mean; I'm happy to explain, as many here have now tried. But you have to meet me/us half way and try and listen.

***

PS, for the record, 14000 ha at the same density as Don Mills would give you ~200 000 houses before deducting for major roads, schools etc; so probably closer to 170,000 at 2.5 people per house, on average, you would house 425,000 people; while consuming vast gobs of land at enormous cost. Where would you like the other 4.6M people to go?
 
Last edited:
LemonCondo said:
I don't think we can reason with him why its not a good idea to fit millions more people in greenbelt sprawl. He just doesn't get it.
Click to expand...
The reality is, this development will sell out, even though all rational thought says it shouldn't sell out. There are too many people who don't seem to mind the lack of amenities, commute times, lack of public transportation, and the general inconvenience of living in such a place, if it means getting their precious single family home with yard.
 
rhys17 said:
The reality is, this development will sell out, even though all rational thought says it shouldn't sell out. There are too many people who don't seem to mind the lack of amenities, commute times, lack of public transportation, and the general inconvenience of living in such a place, if it means getting their precious single family home with yard.
Click to expand...

The key, of course, is downzoning/greenbelt expansion such that developments like this one, in similar locations are prohibited.

It's not that difficult, if you simply apply an 'H' at the provincial level by way of precluding new sewer/water service extensions, that's the end of that.

I'm not deluded that this is likely on a near-term basis; but I would also note, the creation of the Greenbelt involved downzoning, so it can be done, and it can be done again.
 
Northern Light said:
The key, of course, is downzoning/greenbelt expansion such that developments like this one, in similar locations are prohibited.

It's not that difficult, if you simply apply an 'H' at the provincial level by way of precluding new sewer/water service extensions, that's the end of that.

I'm not deluded that this is likely on a near-term basis; but I would also note, the creation of the Greenbelt involved downzoning, so it can be done, and it can be done again.
Click to expand...
.
Northern Light said:
You keep not understanding. You keep assigning 'preference' where I've explicitly debunked this notion and given you all sorts of info.

Stop! If you want to be treated with respect, as someone who has an understanding of these things, stop assigning motive and spend more time brushing up on the facts.

Read posts carefully. Do research. You seem to think you're talking to people with about the same level of knowledge as yourself, with great respect, that is not so.

It doesn't mean everyone here is in the industry or government (though many are); nor that all of us are 'right' all the time. But most of us do have some idea what we're talking about, and you keep repeating yourself as if that fixes everything. It doesn't.

Edit to add: This is the story you were talking about: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toro...es-doug-ford-want-the-greenbelt-too-1.6647857

It doesn't contradict anything I, or others have said here, except you.

You didn't read the story properly.

I'm not being mean; I'm happy to explain, as many here have now tried. But you have to meet me/us half way and try and listen.

***

PS, for the record, 14000 ha at the same density as Don Mills would give you ~200 000 houses before deducting for major roads, schools etc; so probably closer to 170,000 at 2.5 people per house, on average, you would house 425,000 people; while consuming vast gobs of land at enormous cost. Where would you like the other 4.6M people to go?
Click to expand...
Did I say that we have to put 5 million people on farm land in the next 25 years. And aren't you glad that the hectares of land will only hold about 425.000th people instead of 4.6m. Your probably going to answer NO!! I want no land expropriation! Well I can't change this situation of land expropriation it is what it is, I'm not in charge . Any way we're supposed to be looking at what's going into this parcel of land, arguing that point of view. And keeping are personal feelings aside about land expropriation agreed take care.
 
cd concept said:
.

Did I say that we have to put 5 million people on farm land in the next 25 years. And aren't you glad that the hectares of land will only hold about 425.000th people instead of 4.6m. Your probably going to answer NO!! I want no land expropriation! Well I can't change this situation of land expropriation it is what it is, I'm not in charge . Any way we're supposed to be looking at what's going into this parcel of land, arguing that point of view. And keeping are personal feelings aside about land expropriation agreed take care.
Click to expand...

OMG; there is no expropriation proposed! None.

The report is about 'urban boundary expansion'; not expropriation.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top