Pickering Veraine | ?m | ?s

[Midtown Urbanist]

Proposed Veraine community in northeast Pickering flies into the development radar

Proposed Veraine community in northeast Pickering flies into the development radar

The issue: Dorsay Development Corp. has proposed to build a master-planned community in northeast Pickering The impact: The vision of the project is to create a sustainable and affordable community...

www.durhamregion.com

A new master-planned community coming to Pickering.

Veraine, a master-planned community | Pickering

Welcome to Veraine, a master-planned community to be built in Pickering that will thrive with diversity and opportunity. From housing to employment to entertainment, the world will be brought to Veraine.

www.veraine.com

Lots of renderings in that video.

 

[innsertnamehere]

Looks like a ploy by the land owner in an attempt to bring the lands into the urban area. Right now they are whitebelt - which means aren't planned to be developed until probably 2041 or so.. They are probably trying to bring that timeline up by shining a few fancy renderings in front of Pickering Council.

 

[SunriseChampion]

Proposed Veraine community in northeast Pickering flies into the development radar

Proposed Veraine community in northeast Pickering flies into the development radar

The issue: Dorsay Development Corp. has proposed to build a master-planned community in northeast Pickering The impact: The vision of the project is to create a sustainable and affordable community...

www.durhamregion.com

A new master-planned community coming to Pickering.

Veraine, a master-planned community | Pickering

Welcome to Veraine, a master-planned community to be built in Pickering that will thrive with diversity and opportunity. From housing to employment to entertainment, the world will be brought to Veraine.

www.veraine.com

Lots of renderings in that video.

I read about this last week in the Pickering News Advertiser (emphasis on Advertiser).

Why is this even a thing WHEN MOST OF TORONTO IS SFH?

Developers, planners, politicians will all talk a bag of shit about how we're doing things differently now and yet we keep getting more and more non-urban land ruined when there's already enough land that can be redeveloped and house another 2-4 million people, easily.

Same old shit, different pile.
Lipstick. Pig. blah blah

 

[Northern Light]

I read about this last week in the Pickering News Advertiser (emphasis on Advertiser).

Why is this even a thing WHEN MOST OF TORONTO IS SFH?

Developers, planners, politicians will all talk a bag of shit about how we're doing things differently now and yet we keep getting more and more non-urban land ruined when there's already enough land that can be redeveloped and house another 2-4 million people, easily.

Same old shit, different pile.
Lipstick. Pig. blah blah

You're quite right.

This is still more farmland being taken away, good stuff too.

The notion of green-friendliness is swell; but let's be clear, as compared to current use, this site will be a net loss for the environment; merely less bad that it might have been with a more conventional development.

****

Its happening because green-field is still easier than dealing with the pre-existing.

I might argue for picking a section of East York bungalows and wiping them out in favour of midrise on Mortimer, Cosburn and O'Connor with stacked townhomes in between.

But doing so at scale, means government would have to expropriate, as assembly at that scale would be time consuming and costly.

Government would have to do the masterplanning on its own or in conjunction with a developer; the upfront cost of that land would be much higher; and some existing infrastructure (roads, sewers, hydro poles etc etc.) would have to come out
to make way for altered layouts and alignments.

In the end, that would be more sustainable and desirable; but with with a cost of several billion, and oodles more complexity and hassle; greenfield remains the more tempting target for private money and government alike.

 

[SunriseChampion]

But doing so at scale, means government would have to expropriate as assembly that scale would be time consuming and costly.

As a society, we cocked up, big time. Time to take responsibility for that collectively and make it right.

In the end, that would be more sustainable and desirable; but with with a cost of several billion, and oodles more complexity and hassle; greenfield remains the more tempting target for private money and government alike.

Laziness and greed are destructive characteristics indeed.

 

[SunriseChampion]

Seriously.......this shit bothers me so much. Part of it is because I'm a pseudo-hippy and all that, but my analytical and logical mind can't stand it either.

How many people would be able to live in Toronto if it had the same population density as, say, Paris?

Veraine, my left nut.

 

[Midtown Urbanist]

How many people would be able to live in Toronto if it had the same population density as, say, Paris?

Or some of the low-rise but high-density neighbourhoods in Montreal. We don't have to look far away.

Veraine, my left nut.

As far as farmland goes, this one is not that bad to develop. Should the Midtown GO line ever be activated, it would extend through Malvern to Seaton to Veraine.

Don't get me wrong, I understand the sentiment you shared perfectly. But if we are picking a place to build a Veraine, this place isn't terrible.

But I agree with everything that's been said re: the Yellowbelt

 

[SunriseChampion]

The point is we don't need to build any Veraines.

In fact, the point is we shouldn't be building any Veraines until we've made proper use of already developed land.

The Yellow Belt is a piss stain on our collective soul and until it's wiped from the face of the Earth, leave yon prime farm land alone.