Toronto is Booming, but how?

[lezgotolondon]

Canada is a fantastic country and is growing very fast, and Toronto is growing too, being the most important metropolis of the country and a beautiful and livable city.

The city of Toronto had a population growth of more than 4% in the 2006-2011 period and the CSA of more than 9%

around 112.000 people more in the city limits and 470.000 in the metropolitan area in 5 years.

The big core of the metropolis( that can't be seen as different cities by any sane person) counts around 4,500,000 people (I calculated this counting Toronto, Missisauga, Brampton, Vaughan, Richmond Hill and Markham)

So how the city is growing? This is probably an old map of GTA where you can see the fields west of pearson and north of mississauga:


This a map taken from google maps, probably more recent(if you have better maps post them!)


Population of suburban centres like Brampton ,Vaughan nearly doubled in the past 15 years and Missisauga counts nearly 200.000 people more.

After the amalgamation Toronto growth by only 0,9% in 5 years, but in the following 5 years, and after the green bel institution the percentage was 4,5%

On the other side the suburban population growth had decreased but it's still high, always more than 10%

During these years Toronto had a great high density residential development in downtown, but is that enough?

Can medium density modern residential developments for middle-low class(no commieblocks) be useful?

Is the sprawl stopped or contained by the green belt?

Missisauga is booming too, seems that they are building a lot of high density residential towers in the city centre, but in addiction to the fact that they mostly looks like ugly commieblocks, there is no real city center in missisauga, or at leat I can't find it on the map.
It's still a suburbs with an high density core(which would be good), and that's something unbelievable for most european, because missisauga is a municipality of 700.000 people, it's a big city by our standards..Other big suburbs like markham or scarborough have a risible centre.

The forecasts say that Toronto will grow a lot in the following years, if the sprawl will be contained, it will be densier in in the city centre, and it's already happening, but hopefully also in the suburbs.

What do you think toronto is going to be? A bigger city centre with more events, attractions shops?more interesting suburbs with their own centres?
Will the the politcians be forced to invest in public transport system because of the transports that risk to become insustainable with popultation and density growth?

[Marcanadian]

The Greenbelt has definitely helped limit some of the sprawl that would otherwise be ravaging our farmland. The number of single-detached dwellings as part of new housing starts are decreasing quickly, as space becomes limited and developers begin to think creatively. Sprawl is still allowed to continue in the area designated as the 'Whitebelt', which is the currently undeveloped section between the urban boundary and the Greenbelt itself. There is also the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, which encourages intensification. An example policy is that at least 40% of all new residential development should be contained within the 2006 built up area. Some municipalities have gone above and beyond that target with 60% targets.

Sprawl will still have its place as there's always going to be a demand for single-family homes, but I think since the supply is decreasing, people are more willing to adapt. Vaughan and Mississauga are typical examples of urban sprawl, but both are developing at higher densities now. The Spadina line is being extended to Vaughan's city centre, which will encourage development further. Mississauga is building an LRT on Hurontario and their core density is rapidly increasing. Markham is currently building their city centre and have just announced plans for an arena.

The Greenbelt and Growth Plan are really key to making all of this work, so I'm hoping it'll stay in place for a long time.

[Taller, Better]

I expect that the Greenbelt legislation was a big contributor to the downtown condo boom of the past decade.

[icemachine]

Yup, I think the Greenbelt has definitely slowed suburban expansion, although the price I just paid for a Semi in Aurora almost makes me wish it hadn't. (The Conservationist in me is happy though)

Richmond Hill has 5 Condo developments under construction and about as many proposals on Yonge between Major Mac and Hwy 7. It's this sort of Intensification that will allow the inner 905 belt to keep growing despite the Greenbelt legislation.

[Epi]

Growth in the high density parts of Toronto is mainly driven by a few things:
1) Limited supply of land due to the greenbelt.

This has limited continuous sprawl in the suburbs, and has encouraged higher density growth within the suburbs themselves. Other than that, I do not think it has had much of an effect on downtown growth. People who want to live so far from the city wouldn't magically want to live in condos downtown just because housing is more expensive. They probably live in the exurbs (barrie, clarington) or in condos in the suburbs.

2) No more greenfield land inside the City of Toronto.

This one is huge in my opinion. In the last few years, the very last stretches of virgin land in Toronto have been built on in the edges of the city. Considering the surrounding suburbs were already built up to Toronto's city limits, this marked the last bit of 'infill' inbetween the city and the suburbs that was possible. This means that people who wanted to live inside the city proper either had to have a lot of money, or live in a tower. This has been a huge contributor to people living in the outer built up areas of Toronto (i.e. NYCC, Etobicoke around Kiping Stn, SCC), but yet again the impact on downtown is limited. I say this because downtown condos are generally 50% higher in price, and there's a reason why people would have wanted to buy a house in the outer parts of T.O proper in the first place.

3) The current generation of 20-somethings, many of which CHOOSE to live in the city because they like it.

Probably the biggest reason why downtown is booming. It's filled with people between 20-35. Every single condo tower is bristling with people like this. We're not talking about clubbing kids. We're talking about people who work in the financial district, wealthy young professionals who may live further away and can afford downtown and students renting. A huge number of these people grew up in the suburbs are are tired of that lifestyle and wish they could be downtown forever.

On the way there's a bunch of older people who are trading down, but their numbers are much less.

4) Traffic in the GTA finally reaching a breaking point for most people.

Regardless of the greenbelt, the fact is there are really only so many people willing to drive >60 minutes to get to work every day, considering the time it takes, the stress of rush hour driving and gas prices. There is finally enough traffic so that the demand to live near transit nodes, or live near the city has reached enough of a critical mass so that developers can invest hundreds of millions on projects and see a reasonable payback. Before there just wasn't enough interest for this.



I think each of those factors are equally important for how Toronto is evolving as a city.

[lezgotolondon]

Originally Posted by Marcanadian

The Greenbelt has definitely helped limit some of the sprawl that would otherwise be ravaging our farmland. The number of single-detached dwellings as part of new housing starts are decreasing quickly, as space becomes limited and developers begin to think creatively. Sprawl is still allowed to continue in the area designated as the 'Whitebelt', which is the currently undeveloped section between the urban boundary and the Greenbelt itself. There is also the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, which encourages intensification. An example policy is that at least 40% of all new residential development should be contained within the 2006 built up area. Some municipalities have gone above and beyond that target with 60% targets.

Sprawl will still have its place as there's always going to be a demand for single-family homes, but I think since the supply is decreasing, people are more willing to adapt. Vaughan and Mississauga are typical examples of urban sprawl, but both are developing at higher densities now. The Spadina line is being extended to Vaughan's city centre, which will encourage development further. Mississauga is building an LRT on Hurontario and their core density is rapidly increasing. Markham is currently building their city centre and have just announced plans for an arena.

The Greenbelt and Growth Plan are really key to making all of this work, so I'm hoping it'll stay in place for a long time.

Usually single family homes in the suburbs should be more expesinve than apartments. I bet that if you give people the opportunity to rent or own apartments near (not in) the city centre or a public transport system with a reasonable amount of money, prices will decrease and more houses will be available in the suburbs.

How much is the rent for an average single family home in the suburbs?
How much is the rent for a flat in a condo near the city centre or a metro/tram line?

Originally Posted by icemachine

Yup, I think the Greenbelt has definitely slowed suburban expansion, although the price I just paid for a Semi in Aurora almost makes me wish it hadn't. (The Conservationist in me is happy though)

Richmond Hill has 5 Condo developments under construction and about as many proposals on Yonge between Major Mac and Hwy 7. It's this sort of Intensification that will allow the inner 905 belt to keep growing despite the Greenbelt legislation.

I don't know where is hwy 7. But are you saying that they plan to build condos along the extreme boundary of suburbs?
Seems a bit illogical.

Originally Posted by Epi

Growth in the high density parts of Toronto is mainly driven by a few things:
1) Limited supply of land due to the greenbelt.

This has limited continuous sprawl in the suburbs, and has encouraged higher density growth within the suburbs themselves. Other than that, I do not think it has had much of an effect on downtown growth. People who want to live so far from the city wouldn't magically want to live in condos downtown just because housing is more expensive. They probably live in the exurbs (barrie, clarington) or in condos in the suburbs.


3) The current generation of 20-somethings, many of which CHOOSE to live in the city because they like it.

Probably the biggest reason why downtown is booming. It's filled with people between 20-35. Every single condo tower is bristling with people like this. We're not talking about clubbing kids. We're talking about people who work in the financial district, wealthy young professionals who may live further away and can afford downtown and students renting. A huge number of these people grew up in the suburbs are are tired of that lifestyle and wish they could be downtown forever.

On the way there's a bunch of older people who are trading down, but their numbers are much less.

1)What's the difference from a living point to live in an outer suburbs or in one of the suburbs like neighborhood near the city centre?I suppose you can still leave the suburban life.
Do the suburbs next to the city centre have higher prices?

3) this is a point. I'm a persone who like to live in the city, and I think I will until i will be old. If the young population of the city want to live in the centre they should be able to do it. having something like 20-30% of the population of
5,5 millions people living in the toronto centre or in other big suburbs centres will be awesome.


MY IDEA:

Buying or renting a family house in the suburbs should be expensive. Suburbs are for old people, some families with children and so on.
Toronto has already A LOT of family houses compared to other housing types. Something that is quite rare in the old europe, for example.
Maybe not all the people wants to live in suburbs(for example young people), maybe they also want to spend less for rents.Other people are willing to buy expensive apartments in the city centre.

so how to solve it?
Building modern and cheap residential condos near the city centre but not next to it, leaving a margin for future developments and building expensive condos for wealthy people in the city centre.
they should build highrise in downtown, but the cheap building should be lower, something like max 10 storeys, we don't want commieblocks or sao paulo/asian style developments, and the density will grow up aniyway.
With more density the services and activities will expand and there will be need for a better public transport system, lowering the use of cars and improving pollution and traffic.
Also the city centre will be bigger, with a bigger and more diversified offer of shops,entertainment venues etc..
To do that some suburbs near the city centre should be converted to medium density residential, but if the demand is high and entrepeneurs see the profit in the operation, shouldn't be a problem.

This kind of condos



Maybe in 20 years toronto's city centre will be twice as big, with better transports, representing a decent centre for a big and important city like TO.


From the internet the developments in the suburban municipalities of GTA seems all wrong, especially Missisauga. Should I open a new thread only for this?

[Epi]

Originally Posted by lezgotolondon

Usually single family homes in the suburbs should be more expesinve than apartments. I bet that if you give people the opportunity to rent or own apartments near (not in) the city centre or a public transport system with a reasonable amount of money, prices will decrease and more houses will be available in the suburbs.

How much is the rent for an average single family home in the suburbs?
How much is the rent for a flat in a condo near the city centre or a metro/tram line?

Not that many people rent houses in Toronto. Some do, but I'd say the majority of people who live in the suburbs are owners. A typical 2000 sq ft (200 sq M) house in the suburbs would go for around $500,000, which is similar for a 1000 sq ft (100 sq M) condo downtown.

This means that if you are a couple with an average job and kids, you can afford either. A lot of people would rather go for a much bigger house, with a backyard, trees and empty streets for their kids to play in.

I don't know where is hwy 7. But are you saying that they plan to build condos along the extreme boundary of suburbs?
Seems a bit illogical.

Highway 7 is a large arterial road about 4km north of the Toronto city limits. It marks the 'high density' areas of the suburbs of Vaughan and Markham (combined population 600,000). The city governments are investing heavily to increase transit along this corridor including spending $1 billion for a bus rapid transit line, and also a subway connection to downtown on one side. This road is also a major link to major employment centres. One of the prime manufacturing areas of all of the GTA is found in Vaughan by the rail yards off of Highway 7, while a huge number of office parks (and especially Toronto's high tech sector) is based in Markham. All in all, a lot of people work and live in this area, so it makes sense to increase its density.

1)What's the difference from a living point to live in an outer suburbs or in one of the suburbs like neighborhood near the city centre?I suppose you can still leave the suburban life.
Do the suburbs next to the city centre have higher prices?

The closer you get into Toronto's CBD, the higher prices go. In the actual suburbs outside of city limits (~20km from city centre) prices are $500,000 for 2000 sq ft house. This rises steadily to houses right in the core where a 1500 sq ft house could go for $800,000 easy. Traffic accordingly increases as well. In fact because the distant suburbs are generally laid out with large arterial roads and large highways, it may actually take just as long to drive downtown from them then from the 'inner suburbs' where you have to clog through streetlights and city traffic.

Buying or renting a family house in the suburbs should be expensive. Suburbs are for old people, some families with children and so on.
Toronto has already A LOT of family houses compared to other housing types. Something that is quite rare in the old europe, for example.
Maybe not all the people wants to live in suburbs(for example young people), maybe they also want to spend less for rents.Other people are willing to buy expensive apartments in the city centre.

The thing is, in North America cities are built for the car. Absolute distances should not be used, but rather commuting distances instead. This also correlates with where you work.

For historical and tax reasons, easily 50% of the jobs in Toronto are actually in the suburbs surrounding the city. This ranges from banking jobs, to manufacturing, to the high tech sector. None of these areas are accessible by transit because they are too spread out, and thus not cost efficient to build transit out to them. Therefore, you have to drive.

Now when you realize that, and realize that the suburbs were designed for the car, you soon realize that you should not be looking at 'distance to the city centre' but rather commuting distances'. If you lived in the city and worked in say Mississauga, it may take you 1.5 hours to commute each way. Funny enough if you lived in Guelph (100 km outside of Toronto) it would take you less time to get to work. This means that for many people, there is a huge incentive to not live in the city. Futhermore, since prices are much higher in the city, there is further incentive to not live there.

This is why the outer suburbs are developing high density nodes now, because it actually makes sense for this to happen due to the greenbelt as they are building where the jobs are.


Now you may wonder, if so many jobs are outside of the city, why don't housing prices reflect this? Well the simple answer is that houses are actually bigger in the suburbs, and can easily go to 4000 sq ft ($1,000,000) and above. As well, the highest paying jobs are still found within the city, and it is fair to say that for a lot of high earning individuals, they are more of the type who like the comforts of the city as well as they can afford the comforts of the city (good restaurants, expensive cultural events, the best private schools for the kids, etc).

[lezgotolondon]

If the average price of a suburban house is that, I can't believe that the vast majority of houses are owned and not rented.
I mean, most of the people seems to leave in single houses, but they are expensive to buy(as in Italy in some small cities, but we have very high prices compared to the rest of eu and our salaries are sensibly lower) so where young adults between 20-30 live?Can they afford to buy an house after few working years?are they living with parents?

It's normal that flat and houses in the city centre are expensive, as should be with suburbs. the problem with american cities is that they usually lack a medium density residential belt outside the centre and before the suburbs.
With that belt people could live near the city centre at lower prices because offer will be sensibly larger.

This doesn't seem to happen to Toronto at the moment, isn't it?

I know that american cities are built for cars, but these new developments could partially change the situation. Suburbs will still be for cars, but new medium density residential neighbornhoods will be served by an efficient public transport system, reducing the need for cars.
If you work in one place only far away from home why not using public transport system(if it's a well managed service of course)? you can drive to the nearest station/stop for few minutes and then use the system.
if you need 1.5 hours to go from missisauga to downtown by car is awfully too much, it's 22km in straight line. In london during morning rush hour I never had to wait more than one hour from outside london to the city centre and London is the biggest european city with the biggest suburbs.
if you don't have to drive per dozens of km to go to work, then the traffic will decrease a lot. you can still drive whenever you want.

Summarizing:

-New medium density residential developments near the actual city centre(leaving space for future expansion of dowtown)
leads to:
-Lower prices for cheap apartments
-Lower demand for suburbs houses(because lots of people will live in the new flats instead of being obliged to live in a single house in the suburbs)
-Need for better public transport
-Less traffic and pollution if the transport is improved correctly
-larger city centre(s) more diversity,services and entertainment .more Neighbornhoods with their own life.

Suburbs will still be alive, there will be less demand for houses and probably the prices will go down.
They will become densier and be able to attract shops, jobs and activities because they will be important nodes of the public transpost system, but that will help to decongestionate the traffic towards the city centre, they will become satellites with their own gravity.

Now i'd like to talk about Mississauga:


The municipality counts 700.000 people, as a regular city, but it doesn't look like one at all. This is a problem, every metropolis should have urban satellites.
Toronto is building these satellites now. Missisauga without a city centre could have been part of the Toronto municipality, because there is no point of having one if there are only houses and malls.

The problem is that imho the new centre of Missisauga is badly planned.(but of course you know better than me the situation so maybe explain)
The centre is build for cars ONLY, while it should have been built for pedestrian and cars. A core of few roads where the cars are not allowd surrounded by other building and a lot of multi floor and underground parkings. The shop should have been street shops. Instead we have a big mall just in the middle of the city centre wasting a lot of space.
The city centre is not next to important roads, but they are inside it. Imagine what the city centre of Toronto would look like if it was planned like that! Most boring city ever!
City centres are place of meetings, where the society develops. This is not happening in TO and they looks like nameless suburbs.
I can't imagine there are people willing to pay a lot of money to live in the Abolute world towers!It's a dubai style development.

Will the situation be different in the future? I hope so!

[Marcanadian]

Mississauga has small urban retail strips but they are often overlooked because of Square One at the City Centre. I consider these to be the 'historical' centres of the city, while the area you point out is the 'modern' centre.


Port Credit:

[IMG]http://i48.************/a3hzcj.jpg[/IMG]

[IMG]http://i50.************/2196tmg.jpg[/IMG]

[IMG]http://i49.************/kb7o2a.jpg[/IMG]


Streetsville:

[IMG]http://i45.************/9ixzjm.jpg[/IMG]

[IMG]http://i47.************/1iokk4.jpg[/IMG]


That whole area you describe is under intense development pressure which not only includes condominium development, but retail at the base of those towers. Many people consider Square One to be a mistake, but it's because of Square One that people want to live there. Without it, those condominiums probably wouldn't exist. So I see a definite move towards an urban downtown. It's happening quite quickly. The square outside of City Hall was renovated, Sheridan College has built a campus downtown, and the Parkside development is adding density to the core.

[ditto]

This may have popped up in another post but the above shows population growth in toronto from 2006 to 2011

[Epi]

Originally Posted by lezgotolondon

If the average price of a suburban house is that, I can't believe that the vast majority of houses are owned and not rented.

In some suburban areas, you can find houses for $250,000 for like 1500 sq ft (i.e Oshawa, which is not exactly a beautiful city and it is very far away).

I mean, most of the people seems to leave in single houses, but they are expensive to buy(as in Italy in some small cities, but we have very high prices compared to the rest of eu and our salaries are sensibly lower) so where young adults between 20-30 live?Can they afford to buy an house after few working years?are they living with parents?

This is actually a real problem faced by my generation (I'm 31). Our parents were able to live in the suburbs with average jobs to pay off the mortgage. For instance, an average family of say one person being a teacher and the other a secretary could easily afford a house in the nicer suburbs.

But now prices have risen so high that the only places left to live are apartments or small condos (600 sq ft), or to live with the parents for people with average jobs. This is why so many people of my generation are living in condos, and then the city. If all you can afford in a 600 sq ft place, you might choose to at least pay a bit more to live within the city so even though your place is tiny, you have lots of things outside to enjoy.

Those who can afford houses, are either living ridiculous distances away, are wealthy, or are living in much smaller places or townhouses which no one 25 years ago would have lived in.

It's normal that flat and houses in the city centre are expensive, as should be with suburbs. the problem with american cities is that they usually lack a medium density residential belt outside the centre and before the suburbs.
With that belt people could live near the city centre at lower prices because offer will be sensibly larger.

This doesn't seem to happen to Toronto at the moment, isn't it?

Toronto actually is unique in this way. We have a LOT of high-rise 20-30 story buildings all across the city. A huge number of these are rental places, and as such anyone who doesn't make a combined family income of >$70,000/year or more will probably live in these places. People who make more but less than $100,000/year will probably live in small condos or small houses. Note this doesn't include people who bought houses 15 years ago before the current boom and had relatively affordable places to live in.

If you work in one place only far away from home why not using public transport system(if it's a well managed service of course)?

I assume you don't drive, or parking where you are is excessively expensive. Driving and having your own personal space, listening to your own music, not having to be shoved by strangers, and being able to sit during the entire commute is actually pretty nice. I commuted by bus/subway for years, and you know, it's just a lot nicer to drive. Most people would only rather take transit if at least the time savings were the same (which for Toronto's transit is usually slower) or if there were significant savings in money, and with free parking everywhere that's not happening.

Now i'd like to talk about Mississauga:

Just so you know, we all make fun of Mississauga in Toronto about how crappy it is. So even we are not proud of it.

In the end, we are not in Europe. European cities developed hundreds of years ago, when most people walked to get anywhere. And when they got bigger, they followed this level of density everywhere. Cities in North America were mostly developed after the car was invented and it was assumed that you'd drive everywhere. Our cities sprawl endlessly. A typical European city of 500,000 would have a 'downtown' area bigger than a typical North American city of 1,000,000.

[Taller, Better]

Who ever originally came up with the name "Streetsville"? Or, "Unionville", for that matter. Adding ville onto the end like that sounds so lame.

[KamT]

What surprises me is that so many forumers from Toronto criticize Mississauga without doing some basic research.. There is a huge municipal project going on in 'sauga called Downtown21. It's been planned since 2009-ish, and it is basically a masterplan of how we can re-develop the crappy "downtown" we have now (by 2021, hence the name).

Mississauga's city centre is pretty bad atm.. i can see why world-class TOers would say so.. even I see why. But guess what? It was worse 5 years ago. and 10 years ago, it was horrible. 5 years from now, it will be better, and 10 and 20 years from now it will be amazing! Downtowns arnt formed overnight. Mississauga realized they fucked up and created a giant suburb the size of buffalo or detroit. But better late than never... slowly, more developements into a more urban environment are being carried out. Celebration square was created, more events are held. Civic centre was re-developed. The city is doing whatever it can to not be laughed at, they are regulating to create urban planning, for example, they would only let Whole Foods build at square one if they included a cafe.

Heres the photo of the cafe (by jasonZed)


I know its nothing, and i admit it's crap, but at least it's somthing. more restrictions are put in place, the Downtown21 masterplan will take up the concrete parking lots and use that space to build lowrise buildings with retail... no buildings can go over 3 stories in most of these places. In fact, DwnTwn21 is so complex, there is a whole pdf i can include here... Its so frustrating that there is so much effort to be put in, but most people are just kicking mississauga down to the ground as it tries to get up. If vaughan and brampton want to do the same, please do, it only benifits the rest of the GTA and even GGH. Dowtown Toronto is amazing because it's historic... but mississauga didnt exist until 1974 as a town, then '76 as a city... ofcourse it sucks now... but we are trying and like i said cities arnt built overnight.

This is MCC in 1976



This is TO in 1976


Slowly, MCC is starting to look more urban, we have many events like ribfest for example:


We re-branded out Transit to a friendly miWay, and for a little ego/pride we have Absolute world.


Look how much open space there is here:


There will be LRT, BRT, cafes, shops, general retail, waaay more than we have atm..
Now with the DwnTown 21 plan, imagein how it will look. ( I edited some to give pointers) ALL SCREENSHOTS FROM THE DWNTOWN21 PDF.






On top of all that, we will create a totally new street dubbed Main street, (the last pic) and It will serve as our little urban walkway (main one, of many).

Here is the PDF for anyone who wants to read all 86 pages. Its waay mroe in depth, i only shoed 5% of all pics/info.

http://www6.mississauga.ca/onlinemap...-04-08_web.pdf

The only reason Im sayin all this is cause if i dont you will continue to think there is no plan. Give it a little more time, and it'll actually be decent, and a really exciting place to be.

Potential is there, you just have to look hard enough to find it.

[lezgotolondon]

@Marcanadian: port credit looks very nice, I hope it will be preserved as it is now and expanded.

Yesterday i discovered the Downtown21 masterplan that is aiming to transform the downtown Missisauga towards a real city centre.
It looks good enough, but it probably will require 10-15 years and those bad commieblocks won't be substituted.
Also where can i find more info about that render which looks great?


@EPI

This is why Toronto needs more cheap condos! I know that the city already has some condos in the suburbs, but they should be made along the transport routes near a reasonable commute distance to the city centre with the public transports, like max 20min.
To be clear they should be built in a belt comparable to the distance of Deer Park and Davisville from Yorkville. These two areas already show some of these developments, but Toronto is booming, you are saying that the prices are high so a lot more condos should be built to improve the offer and cut the prices.
These condos should be modern, not commieblocks. Expensive condos inside the city centre will be reserved to reach people.
An higher density near the city core will make the centre enlarge.

I drive, and I assure you that a good public transport system is the best option if you have to go to work/university and then come back home."Good" means that it is extensive, proportioned to the traffic, not expensive and frequent. Something that you have to go to some european metropolis(or maybe tokyo) to understand.
Toronto will probably be extremely affected in positive by a good suburban rail network. you have Go Rail, I don't know if it's good, but I remember to have read some complaints about it.
The metro is not good for long distances, like more than 30 minutes from the city centre. In this case you need a suburban Rail service, which is perfect for the suburbs. Only few stops in the principal suburban centres, High capacity and fast trains.
As an example, in my town an old and slow train with suburban use(but officially is a regional train!) takes 21 minutes to make 20km with 4 stops.
From cooksville to Union Station, Google transit says that at 8am it needs 33min with probably only 4 stops for around 25km.

how long does it takes with a car? Google say that using Gardiner Expwy in the actual traffic it takes 45 minutes.
Surely there will be some people who like to drive and will drive anyway, but they will drive better with less traffic!


yes cities in europe are different, but London,for example, is has a lot of suburbs, and things are really different to most of the american-oz cities. For me is a model(even if it's not perfect)
So i think it will be very good for Toronto to take some ideas from London, because is a booming reach city that can become one of the most important cities(top5) in america.


So the question is: Is toronto building or planning to build cheap/middle class/middle height condos near the city centre in addition to luxury condos in the city centre?

For example, something similar to High Park village but with a shorter buildings height and some neighbornhood centre for the community?


Are there some interesting suburban city centres projects other than missisauga?

Sorry for my bad writing, if you have some doubts I can make some maps to explain.


@KamT
Thanks, I discovered the project only yesterday, I'm not from TO and I have never been to Canada. Can you link me a place where to see updated pics of downtown Missisauga?
I still think it was badly planned, and I expected a better planification for a modern city in a country like canada, but the downtown 21 projects seems to try to solve almost all the problems in an efficient way. The only regret is that Missisauga could have been a lot better.

[KamT]

Yeah thats fine, and I agree with you. Another screwup we made was that we created our downtown in the middle of the city, as opposed to the (somehwhat) historical village of Port Credit (mississauga is made up of all these smaller villages within the city)..and its on the lake too.. that was a real opportunity missed.

Here's a photo of Port Credit (with MCC -mississauga city centre in the top left"downtown")


The reason I say this is because Port Credit looks much like toronto did in the 1930-50's - an actual grid with a history behind it. If sauga built its downtown there, it would be at least 15-20 years ahead of where it is today, becuase they wouldnt have to build additional infrastructure such as roads.

Here is the link to the Main Mississauga thread:

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=441769

its a long thread- the first page is from may '06!! the newer developments are at the end.. worth a read. There is also a new mississauga proposed developmets thread. Its new, but its already started:

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=1539268

[icemachine]

I'm not sure if Legz realizes just what a young city Toronto and its suburbs are. "Old" Toronto after all only unified with the other 5 boroughs in 1998, while regional government for Metro Toronto only dates to 1953.

[icemachine]

Originally Posted by Taller, Better

Who ever originally came up with the name "Streetsville"? Or, "Unionville", for that matter. Adding ville onto the end like that sounds so lame.

Streetsville was founded by Timothy Street in 1819, Unionville was settled in 1794, incorporated in 1803 and I guess was likely named for the recent Union of the Irish and British crowns in 1800

[lezgotolondon]

Originally Posted by icemachine

I'm not sure if Legz realizes just what a young city Toronto and its suburbs are. "Old" Toronto after all only unified with the other 5 boroughs in 1998, while regional government for Metro Toronto only dates to 1953.

so then?


Anyway I just found that:

http://www.thestar.com/news/article/...call-of-sprawl

...........

One jurisdiction — Markham — has woken up and smelt the exhaust. It’s planning high-density, mixed-use neighbourhoods organized around public transit.

Others — Mississauga, Brampton, Vaughan — sold themselves to developers long ago and cannot break free.

For them, intelligent management, urban planning, Smart Growth as it’s now called, are no longer seen as an option. They have so much invested in the old ways that the future has become a frightening place to be avoided at all costs.

At the same time, we have travelled so far down the road of vehicular dependence we are unable to imagine life without cars. Our addiction is so widespread and complete, it seems normal.

Yet even if global warming weren’t a crisis of unprecedented proportions, the logic of sprawl no longer holds. The sheer volume of traffic makes getting around an increasingly expensive and time-consuming ordeal. Gridlock in the Greater Toronto Area is now ranked worse than that of Los Angeles, a city famous for its congestion. Indeed, it is said to cost the regional economy about $6 billion annually.

Given what we know, the need for provincial legislation such as the Green Belt and Places to Grow acts should be obvious. And yet, the forces of sprawl enjoy the support of many local councils.

A civic psychologist, were there such a discipline, would have a field day. It’s a textbook case of mass self-deception in which the various players — developers, politicians, citizens — enable each other’s behaviour. We all understand the need for Smart Growth, but if you ignore it, so will I.

Seems that Markham will become a very interesting development

[Innsertnamehere]

you might have fun looking at this website for the markham development:

www.downtownmarkham.ca

[InTheBeach]

Originally Posted by Epi

Those who can afford houses, are either living ridiculous distances away, are wealthy, or are living in much smaller places or townhouses which no one 25 years ago would have lived in.

Or they bought before this current boom. I guess I'm now, grudgingly, considered wealthy (partly due to the appreciation of my house - ironically), but that was not the case when I bought my house.

It was simply more affordable when I bought it. There is no way I would pay market value for it today, even though I can afford it. It is too disconnected from reality.

I like to remind people that every generation gets its buying opportunity.