News   Dec 20, 2024
UrbanToronto Year-End Poll: Vote on the Best Buildings of 2024, presented by Sapphire Balconies
 1K     5 
News   Dec 20, 2024
UrbanToronto's Social Media Presence Skyrocketed in 2024
 791     2 
News   Dec 20, 2024
Mattamy Homes Records A Year of Accomplishments
 1.5K     0 

Toronto Ridiculous NIMBYism thread

AlvinofDiaspar said:
Or condos. But then it would tower over the 3s bridge, and we can't have that for the outrage to continue.

AoD
Click to expand...

We can't have the train folks peering into people's bedrooms. Otherwise people will be forced to close their blinds before getting laid from now on.
 
Here's the link.

davenport_diamond-583x328.jpg
 
howl said:
Barrie line will bridge over CN line. . . just like at the new junction interchange.

https://goo.gl/maps/VKEtc
Click to expand...

At the highest point, where the bridge will be three stories high, it won't be anywhere near any homes. There are some residential buildings 100 meters to the north, but I assume the bridge would have descended quite a bit by then.

I look forward to seeing renders of this "superbridge" in its context.
 
TheTigerMaster said:
At the highest point, where the bridge will be three stories high, it won't be anywhere near any homes. There are some residential buildings 100 meters to the north, but I assume the bridge would have descended quite a bit by then.

I look forward to seeing renders of this "superbridge" in its context.
Click to expand...

A quick google search says bridges over railway lines need to be about 9m high, and railways are generally designed to have a maximum slope of 1%. Therefore the start and finish of the slope should be about 900m either side of the crossing point. At 100m from the highest point the rails will be about 8m off the ground.
 
I can sympathize with why these residents are upset. I wouldn't want this thing near my house either. However, things like this are the price of living in a city, or any populated area. Progress can't be halted to benefit a few people.
 
TheTigerMaster said:
I can sympathize with why these residents are upset. I wouldn't want this thing near my house either. However, things like this are the price of living in a city, or any populated area. Progress can't be halted to benefit a few people.
Click to expand...

For the price difference between the elevated and tunnel option, Metrolinx could give adjacent property owners the option of being bought out at current home values then simply selling off the land to developers; a few 4 to 6 storey condos ought to hide the bridge pretty effectively. Net cost for flipping the properties for Metrolinx ought to be very low; and it's not expropriation, purely optional.
 
Last edited:
They shoudl buil
rbt said:
For the price difference between the elevated and tunnel option, Metrolinx could give adjacent property owners the option of being bought out at current home values then simply selling off the land to developers; a few 4 to 6 storey condos ought to hide the bridge pretty effectively. Net cost for flipping the properties for Metrolinx ought to be very low; and it's not expropriation, purely optional.
Click to expand...

Metrolinx could buy existing homes then turn around and sell them with a notice to the new buyer that a 3 story rail bridge will be built right outside. They would probably lose very little money.
 
Interesting article on
NIMBY Obstruction and the Density Paradox
at this link.

An op-ed describes a paradox produced by the ongoing debates over density while also presenting potential solutions for overcoming the resulting impasse.

Our legendary American "Can-Do" attitude is under assault where it comes to changing and improving our cities. Steadily heightening "NIMBY" resistance brings our capacity to devise solutions, appropriate in scale to the size of our challenges, to its knees. To move forward, we must understand NIMBY opposition and the fears that motivate it. Only then can we begin to offer real alternatives and credible solutions to move beyond this impasse.

A large part of what motivates NIMBYs is a concern for personal mobility. People in cars fear density because they perceive density to inevitably mean "more cars in the way." Transit is a way out of this dilemma, but advocates of transit clamor for more density near transit stations to generate adequate ridership numbers for the trains. The two sides, literally, share very little common ground. Attempts to bridge this chasm from one side or the other lead to self-defeating consequences. I call this situation "the density paradox." If we want to move forward together as a community, we need to find ways to overcome it, first.

In discussions about density, Manhattan stands as the apocalyptic scarecrow of density's worst excesses. And yet, the real Manhattan is not what many expect; there are relatively few cars on the streets, there is ample open space, economic vitality, and a lot of interesting places and people to discover. Getting around is quite easy—by public transit, by taxi, by bicycle, or simply by foot.

Manhattan's population density is approximately 67,000 people per square mile, which converts into 105 people, or roughly 40 households, per acre. The density near Los Angeles' beaches, where some of the loudest NIMBY opposition against density is heard, is about 11,000 people per square mile (17 people, or roughly seven households per acre).

How can 105 people per acre comfortably exist with each other in Manhattan, while in SoCal the mere mention of ramping up density from 17 people to 20 might generate a local uprising? What is the difference? Are people in California unique in their need for personal space? Are New Yorkers unique because they need so little?

Density has a numerical and perceived reality. A while ago, articles based on a paper by Stone and Mees (gated, but here is a summary) argued that Los Angeles is really the densest city in the United States! Angelinos tend to believe this, because we feel so very congested on our roads. In reality, New York has high concentrations of density and vast open or low-density spaces in its boroughs. Los Angeles, in contrast, is sort of medium dense—but evenly, and everywhere.

Missing in the discourse about density is the relationship between perceived density and transportation systems. Psychologists measure the need for personal space relative to different cultures around the globe; we should also measure it qualified by which transportation culture one feels part of. If we culturally equate transportation with cars, we intuitively expand our personal space to the spatial needs of our cars. That makes a big difference.
Click to expand...

For the complete article, go to this link.

function%20in%20all%20of%20these%20densities.png


find%20in%20Los%20Angeles.png


progressive%20community.png


Make%20it%20viable.png
 
I like that graphic. In most parts of the world, outside of North America, one goes from rural to village or city with very little in between.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top