Cmon we’re only 7yrs away from pretending to solve the current housing crisis.I am going to take a controversial position and ask: Do we really need all those buildings there?
...years and years of no ending construction. Or when it does end, Earth would of have colonized Mars already. A simple resolve of just covering the areas in question with more meadows, trees and pedestrian right of ways...leaving the rest to the industry that already exists there. I get that it's less sexy, but the money that would be saved on capital expenditures and a place where humans and other local animals can escape to seems more of win/win situation for me. And save us the blight of seeing backhoes, hording and dirt mounds in perpetuity and a dog's age. /sigh
I am going to take a controversial position and ask: Do we really need all those buildings there?
...years and years of no ending construction. Or when it does end, Earth would of have colonized Mars already. A simple resolve of just covering the areas in question with more meadows, trees and pedestrian right of ways...leaving the rest to the industry that already exists there. I get that it's less sexy, but the money that would be saved on capital expenditures and a place where humans and other local animals can escape to seems more of win/win situation for me. And save us the blight of seeing backhoes, hording and dirt mounds in perpetuity and a dog's age. /sigh
We have a very under-utilized Toronto Island Park and Tommy Thompson Park nearby to accomplish what you're asking
. It would be a 'waste of infrastructure' if we built all this and let it naturalize. Instead, think of the taxbase that will be built in the coming decades. It will pay for itself many times over.
As someone who missed out on buying a home when I could afford one, I quite frankly find your suggestions laughable. I wish there were 25,000 units here, not just 9,000.
Huzzah!The amount of parkland in Toronto, on a per person basis, has declined significantly over the last 20 years.
We've added upwards of 40% more people, and less than 10% more parkland.
It's entirely fair to suggest we're not going to be able to reach a goal of 40% or that there may be better locations to do so, (ie. serving areas with less parkland and more people, and weighting that against the potential for economic returns and affordable housing here); but the idea that the amount of parkland in general, is sufficient is not reasonable.
Nor are the two parks you cited reasonable in terms of serving this area, as access to the Islands requires a paid ferry ride and a considerable trip time from this area, while the Spit is a better choice, it's also a narrow, kilometers long space, which does serve nature well, but is not all that easily accessed as a local service. (ie. you can't drive or take some form of transportation to the interior, or far-end of the spit, and asking people to walk up to 5km to access a space is not that reasonable.
It absolutely will not.
I take no issue w/advocating development here; there are certainly reasons to do so, from housing to economic development.
But the cost of delivering the flood proofing, new river, new Lake Shore, new bridges, new schools, new community centres and new transit will exceed 10B.
The resulting development will also have operating costs, waste pick-up, lawn mowing, flower beds, streetlights, pot holes, snow removal, community centres, Fire/EMS etc etc.
The City will not clear a net benefit for the project for decades to come on a purely net new taxes above and beyond cost of services delivered basis.
That doesn't mean we shouldn't do development here, but that it will return net proceeds in the short or medium term is not the correct argument.
That is really too much, and then a bit. 25,000 units here would be a slum. It would literally be the densest community on earth.
Ferocious winds, no sunlight, elevator waits of up to 45 minutes at peak times, kids needs to be bussed to schools an hour away...........
To argue for poverty, pollution unending traffic gridlock, transit jammed to the gills is not at all reasonable.
It’s fair to advocate for development, it’s not fair to argue for a completely untenable level of development that would create nothing but crises.
The amount of parkland in Toronto, on a per person basis, has declined significantly over the last 20 years.
We've added upwards of 40% more people, and less than 10% more parkland.
It's entirely fair to suggest we're not going to be able to reach a goal of 40% or that there may be better locations to do so, (ie. serving areas with less parkland and more people, and weighting that against the potential for economic returns and affordable housing here); but the idea that the amount of parkland in general, is sufficient is not reasonable.
Nor are the two parks you cited reasonable in terms of serving this area, as access to the Islands requires a paid ferry ride and a considerable trip time from this area, while the Spit is a better choice, it's also a narrow, kilometers long space, which does serve nature well, but is not all that easily accessed as a local service. (ie. you can't drive or take some form of transportation to the interior, or far-end of the spit, and asking people to walk up to 5km to access a space is not that reasonable.
It absolutely will not.
I take no issue w/advocating development here; there are certainly reasons to do so, from housing to economic development.
But the cost of delivering the flood proofing, new river, new Lake Shore, new bridges, new schools, new community centres and new transit will exceed 10B.
The resulting development will also have operating costs, waste pick-up, lawn mowing, flower beds, streetlights, pot holes, snow removal, community centres, Fire/EMS etc etc.
The City will not clear a net benefit for the project for decades to come on a purely net new taxes above and beyond cost of services delivered basis.
That doesn't mean we shouldn't do development here, but that it will return net proceeds in the short or medium term is not the correct argument.
That is really too much, and then a bit. 25,000 units here would be a slum. It would literally be the densest community on earth.
Ferocious winds, no sunlight, elevator waits of up to 45 minutes at peak times, kids needs to be bussed to schools an hour away...........
To argue for poverty, pollution unending traffic gridlock, transit jammed to the gills is not at all reasonable.
Its fair to advocate for development, its not fair to argue for a completely untenable level of development that would create nothing but crises.
The entire waterfront is like this. There are ways to mitigate.Ferocious winds
It doesn't have to be, by any means. If a private developer were in charge of this large an area, I would have conerns, but I hold WaterfrontToronto to a mich higher standard.25,000 units here would be a slum.
Not even close. It's only 2.5x what's planned, and again, surrounded by a massive job hub (East Harbour), lots of planned transit (fingers crossed), and endless green space.It would literally be the densest community on earth.
Don't need to argue these, they're complete fabrications.no sunlight, elevator waits of up to 45 minutes at peak times, kids needs to be bussed to schools an hour away. To argue for poverty, pollution unending traffic gridlock, transit jammed to the gills is not at all reasonable.
You're great at painting a grim picture
but every reason you cited not to build high density here has easy and reasonable solutions.
, but access to the islands and Tommy Thomson Park could easily be resolved by building the proposed streetcar routes to TTP
, and adding new ferry service to TIP.
We're about to double our ferry fleet.
The entire waterfront is like this. There are ways to mitigate.
It doesn't have to be, by any means. If a private developer were in charge of this large an area, I would have conerns, but I hold WaterfrontToronto to a mich higher standard.
Huzzah!
Here’s my question tho, do planners have regularly updated rubrics that calculate the maximum density based on acreage and roadways? Like, Villiers is X sq km, there are 3 roadways with x capacity - and the 3rd bridge actually adds Xmin onto a commute therefore it’s likely that only X% of commuters will take that route, meaning bridges 1-2 will take on X more number of vehicles? Then look at all associated community needs and factor that in, run it with a slide ruler- and Villiers can only maintain X number of units? And if so- why bother listening to us?