Ontario’s government is forcing cities to put density near transit. But Toronto planning is pushing back. This week they explain why density targets aren’t feasible in 11 station areas, including this one 1/ toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2…#topoli#onpoli
The city calls for 85 jobs and people per hectare, 45% of the province’s target, because this area has too much green space 2/
In fact the area looks like this. There’s a parking lot across the street owned by a developer. The city and local councillor @JayeRobinson are actively fighting a development there. 3/
Just to the north is a city-owned golf course with a big parking lot on high ground. 4/
To the west, a low-density house neighbourhood that is being McMansionized. (All this is within the station-area boundaries the city has drawn.) 5/
Read the report, and it’s clear what’s happening: they are saying the intensification is impossible *within the existing city regulations*. In other words, city policy trumps provincial policy. Very curious to see what the minister will do with that. 6/
Would it make more sense to intensify heavily downtown? Yes. But the city opposes that too, and aims to lock down house neighbourhoods within a block of subway stations.
Which means this tiny development (which has prompted a ridiculous year-long litigation) would still be illegal.
Another one: Long Branch GO station. This area is represented by one of the best organized and most aggressively anti-development neighbourhood groups in the city. Quite the coincidence.
“These areas have a built form that does not support high density”
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
These Vancouver “character home” projects are perverse. So much effort and money to add a couple of units while pretending to retain some heritage. theglobeandmail.com/real-estate/va…
The existing house has been duplexed, totally gutted, *and moved*.
And this in the backyard: detached house with garage, listed at $1.9-million
I watched a public consultation last night for this new City of Toronto project, which is half middle-income affordable. It was greeted by some really appalling NIMBYism. Nearby condo owners concerned about “crime.” 1/
And “it’s too tall,” and traffic, all the usual complaints. For a new rental complex replacing a parking lot, in a cluster of highrises, next to a multibillion-dollar new subway. 2/
Very solid site plan and decent prototype architecture. What’s not to like? 3/
This is ridiculous. Law-breaking cyclists are not the problem. Law-breaking drivers, who maim and kill people regularly, are the problem. cbc.ca/news/canada/to…
Good for CBC’s @PaulaDuhatschek for pulling this data. 15 incidents in 15 years. None of them fatal.
Thousands of people have been hit by cars in Toronto, hundreds of them killed, in that time. For most of which Toronto police deliberately abdicated their responsibility to enforce traffic laws. theglobeandmail.com/news/toronto/m…