Regional and Intercity Bus\Rail Transportation

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by roger1818

Who says it has to be to be like "go transit" and be "based around park and rides?" Have a look at the Netherlands. They have a great system of commuter rail and buses to small, rural, walkable communities. The key is in how we build those communities. The problem is that is that Toronto is the only city of reference many people on here have seen.

My only reference to GO transit was to point out the inequity that the province fully funds it, but does little to help greater Ottawa.

None of our official plans propose anything like the Netherlands. Especially out the Greenbelt. When they do, your point will be valid.

We live in a city where culturally density is seen as something that would be reserved for the downtown core. Heck, in this thread we literally have folks like you and lrt's friend droning on about how there should be choice and that it's apparently communism to insist on density (the pre-requisite for walkability). And let's face it, you're on this forum, so you're the enlightened suburbanites. Ask your neighbours what they'd think about the kinds of "suburban" neighbourhoods seen in Amsterdam. I expect expressions of horror and revulsion at the threat to their vision of suburbia.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Sure bud. Show me anywhere that such communities are actually being built outside the greenbelt, and I'll agree it's a fallacy.

Show me anywhere that such communities are actually being built inside the greenbelt. We suck at the way we build communities. My point is that we don't need skyscraper apartment's and condos to reduce "auto dependence"

Here in the real world, we think townhouses are density despite the fact that they come with driveways and garages, required to drive to the grocery store for that weekly trip.

Officially, we have a 15 min city policy now. In reality, it's tokenism when they put up a Mac's in your hood and count it as your grocery store.

As I said, I agree we suck at the way we build communities everywhere.

It's also interesting how you pick and choose from Not Just Bikes, while ignoring the thrust of his message. What do you think he would say about the sprawl you're offering apologetics for? He literally made a video saying he moved to Amsterdam to avoid raising his kids in Canadian suburbia because he thought it was terrible for them:

• Video Link

I am not apologising for anything we are currently building. I am saying we should be building liveable communities similar to what they have in Amsterdam. They have much less land available to them than we do and yet they aren't building skyscraper condos and apartments the way we are. He isn't as vocal about it, but you can tell that he also doesn't like those either.

Don't get me wrong. I am not saying that we need to build more suburbia. We need to build vibrant, well rounded communities and fill in the missing middle.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

None of our official plans propose anything like the Netherlands.

I agree. That is why we are talking about it on here.

Especially out the Greenbelt.

Inside the Greenbelt isn't any better. The only think we know how to build are lifeless condos/apartments and sprawling suburbs. We need to do better.

When they do, your point will be valid.

So the only way an idea can be valid is if it is implemented?

We live in a city where culturally density is seen as something that would be reserved for the downtown core.

We live in a binary city where the only choice is too much density and not enough density.

Heck, in this thread we literally have folks like you and lrt's friend droning on about how there should be choice and that it's apparently communism to insist on density (the pre-requisite for walkability).

When I have I said any of those things?

And let's face it, you're on this forum, so you're the enlightened suburbanites. Ask your neighbours what they'd think about the kinds of "suburban" neighbourhoods seen in Amsterdam. I expect expressions of horror and revulsion at the threat to their vision of suburbia.

Hard to bring up during COVID, but you might be surprised. You seem to have a false impression about what people who you have never met want. People can only buy what is available to them and it is hard to have an opinion about an alternative that they have never seen.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by roger1818

Show me anywhere that such communities are actually being built inside the greenbelt.

Downtown core. Grocery stores without parking. And increasingly a ton of condos with little to no parking. And it's now moving outside the downtown core. Here's a condo proposed on Cyrville without any parking for residents, with proximity to amenities and transit specifically cited as the reason:

https://obj.ca/article/real-estate/resid...loper-targets-transit-users-new-cyrville

Just saw a similar development on Beechwood walking by this weekend. And these are all low rise. This are literally the kind of apartment buildings you'd see in Europe.

Broadly, it's now the norm, inside the Greenbelt for a lot of condos to have less parking than units. We're slowly getting duplexes and triplexes too, with only one spot per unit. The trend is really going to accelerate as a lot of the old malls and plazas get redeveloped. The city is slowly getting better at infill and reduced car use development.

So yes, it's happening. But it is going to be decades before we even get down to 1 spot per unit in the burbs. Even those supposedly dense townhouses, come with two parking spots between the driveway and garage. Even doing plaza/courtyard developments, separating the parking from the home is beyond their understanding.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Downtown core. Grocery stores without parking. And increasingly a ton of condos with little to no parking. And it's now moving outside the downtown core. There's a condo proposed in Cyrville without any parking for residents, with proximity to amenities specifically cited:

https://obj.ca/article/real-estate/resid...loper-targets-transit-users-new-cyrville

Just saw a similar development on Beechwood. It's now the norm, inside the Greenbelt for a lot of condos to have less parking than units. The trend is really going to accelerate as a lot of the old malls and plazas get redeveloped.

So yes, it's happening. But it is going to be decades before we even get down to 1 spot per unit in the burbs. Even those supposedly dense townhouses, come with two parking spots between the driveway and garage.

Everything you mention is a condo. Where is the missing middle?

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by roger1818

Everything you mention is a condo. Where is the missing middle?

The duplexes and triplexes are coming. Drive around Vanier or New Edinburgh or Old Ottawa, you'll see redevelopment happening. Heck, we're at the point that some councillors are complaining about them:

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/westboro-triplex-jeff-leiper-1.4849665

It's not as fast as I'd like, or the city needs. But it is happening. You won't see anything like this in the burbs for decades.

Also, the "missing middle" concept doesn't exclude condos. Just the kind of condos we tend to build: high rises with shoebox sized units. Start building 1100 sqft two bedrooms in 5 storey buildings and they'd fit the missing middle need just fine.

[rocketphish]

Originally Posted by roger1818

Neither thread is quite right. As you say, the other is about Ottawa's bus terminal and this thread is about Regional Bus & Rail Transportation (not intercity bus transportation, like provided by Greyhound).

Well there's an easy solution to that. This is now the Regional and Intercity Bus\Rail Transportation thread.

[LeadingEdgeBoomer]

Originally Posted by rocketphish

Well there's an easy solution to that. This is now the Regional and Intercity Bus\Rail Transportation thread.

I received a Leger Survey last week. It asked where I would like a new intercity bus terminal to be. I answered adjacent to the Via Rail station.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Downtown core. Grocery stores without parking. And increasingly a ton of condos with little to no parking. And it's now moving outside the downtown core. Here's a condo proposed on Cyrville without any parking for residents, with proximity to amenities and transit specifically cited as the reason:

https://obj.ca/article/real-estate/resid...loper-targets-transit-users-new-cyrville

Just saw a similar development on Beechwood walking by this weekend. And these are all low rise. This are literally the kind of apartment buildings you'd see in Europe.

Broadly, it's now the norm, inside the Greenbelt for a lot of condos to have less parking than units. We're slowly getting duplexes and triplexes too, with only one spot per unit. The trend is really going to accelerate as a lot of the old malls and plazas get redeveloped. The city is slowly getting better at infill and reduced car use development.

So yes, it's happening. But it is going to be decades before we even get down to 1 spot per unit in the burbs. Even those supposedly dense townhouses, come with two parking spots between the driveway and garage. Even doing plaza/courtyard developments, separating the parking from the home is beyond their understanding.

But you only want one transit line serving the city. If you want to allow people to live auto-free, we need a more robust transit system serving a wide range of destinations.

If we want to have better suburbs, we need to give options beyond driving. We cannot repeat what we have done for the last 70 years and expect a different result.

Developments with very limited parking will only succeed if transport options are offered. I don't see that being possible in most of the city the way we have designed our transit system. We will see how successful this is. The housing market will determine this.

It seems that you didn't watch youtube video that I linked. The GTA is now realizing that GO Transit has to be better integrated with local transit. We don't need to emulate GO Transit of the past.

[lrt's friend]

SFH are not the only environment that produces sterile urbanity. There are all kinds of townhouse and high rise developments throughout Ottawa that are equally sterile. I do not see Cyrville as a glorious example for us all to follow. Likewise for my own neighbourhood.

There is a general need for improved urban design. Unfortunately, we have not seen this kind of design since the days of the streetcar suburbs. That is why pre-war areas that already have urban bones are the most likely to succeed. It is pretty sad that we are unable to create new urbanity.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

But you only want one transit line serving the city.

Please go through my history and pull out where I said that.

Not supporting the Bank St subway doesn't mean that I only support one transit line through the city.

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

If you want to allow people to live auto-free, we need a more robust transit system serving a wide range of destinations.

Our transit system does cover a "wide range of destinations".

The debate is whether that level of service should be extended to ex-urban areas. And given that they still insist on car dependent build forms, the business case for such investment is low.

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

If we want to have better suburbs, we need to give options beyond driving. We cannot repeat what we have done for the last 70 years and expect a different result.

Investment follows demand. And it has always been this way. As long we keep widening highways building the standard suburban home with 2-4 parking spots (when you count the garage) and 6-10 car driveways in the exurbs, there will never be a case to improve transit because their neighbourhoods are literally designed to be best experienced from the inside of a car.

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

Developments with very limited parking will only succeed if transport options are offered.

And yet all over Vanier, New Edinburgh, Westboro, Old Ottawa East and South, we see old homes being redeveloped into duplexes and triplexes. And most of those areas have nothing but a bus every 10-20 mins.

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

It seems that you didn't watch youtube video that I linked. The GTA is now realizing that GO Transit has to be better integrated with local transit. We don't need to emulate GO Transit of the past.

When the province ponies up (as they do in the GTA), OC Transpo can integrate with the transit services these exurbs run.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

SFH are not the only environment that produces sterile urbanity. There are all kinds of townhouse and high rise developments throughout Ottawa that are equally sterile.

When we can't even set solid density standards without backlash, you shouldn't expect great design standards on top. And all this stems from the attitude that you've displayed on here, where insisting on various requirements is equated with authoritarianism. Well, if we can't tell developers how dense to build, you shouldn't expect the city to be able to dictate how well designed a neighbourhood should be either.

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

I do not see Cyrville as a glorious example for us all to follow. Likewise for my own neighbourhood.

To paraphrase another poster on one of the Cyrville development threads, this area could go from zero to hero in the coming years. Just go look at what is being proposed at 1082 Cyrville and 1178 Cummings. And there's a lot more to come.

I detest huge condos. But I would argue that the area around Cyrville has been decent to date. The area near Ogilvie has a lot of townhomes and triplexes (not sure if they even predate the Transitway station). The buildings near the station are low/mid rise with larger units than anything you'll find in the core. The only thing lacking is mixed use. The next developments are bringing that. And there's still plenty of real estate west of the station that is ripe for redevelopment. I think the area is going to be a gentrification gem over the coming decade. Not too many places that have this many large lots available to build up near a station.

And to anybody complaining about Cyrville, let me ask if you've really looked at any other station in the East? From the industrial area around Trim, to St-Laurent sandwiched between a mall and a freeway, to Blair, located until recently (with the high rise apartment buildings next door) hundreds of meters from all residential areas, the scene isn't exactly great. Cyrville has more residents in walking distance than any other station east of Hurdman. And that's going up with all these developments.

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

There is a general need for improved urban design. Unfortunately, we have not seen this kind of design since the days of the streetcar suburbs. That is why pre-war areas that already have urban bones are the most likely to succeed. It is pretty sad that we are unable to create new urbanity.

This is literally what the "Not Just Bikes" videos were about. And he makes it pretty clear that the reason we don't have this kind of development is the very high level of R1 zoning in our cities today. And I'm willing to bet money that the proportion zoned R1 gets higher as you get further from the core. Which definitively rules out the streetcar suburbs that existed in the past.

I'll post his video again:

• Video Link

And in case that video wasn't clear enough, he makes it even more clear in this one that zoning is the problem:

• Video Link

So again. Why throw good money after bad? The exurbs are pretty much all R1. The suburbs still have a ton of R1 with no redevelopment in sight for a long time to come. Any transit provided requires an insane amount of subsidy per rider. Unless we can implement zoned fares that recover a lot of the higher cost or impose different tax rates, there's not going to be much of a case for boosting service.

On the other hand, all those areas seeing bungalows turned into triplexes? They are on a path to recreating the streetcar suburbs.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by LeadingEdgeBoomer

I received a Leger Survey last week. It asked where I would like a new intercity bus terminal to be. I answered adjacent to the Via Rail station.

It's the logical place. They'd never be able to get a downtown location that is adjacent to a transit station. Take one of the VIA lots and build a bus terminal. Put up a parking structure in the other one.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

There is a general need for improved urban design. Unfortunately, we have not seen this kind of design since the days of the streetcar suburbs. That is why pre-war areas that already have urban bones are the most likely to succeed. It is pretty sad that we are unable to create new urbanity.

I think it is the same situation as the failure of rural main streets. People decry the loss of main street but then drive 40km to Walmart to save a few dollars. Modern streetcar suburbs rely on hipster tourism to maintain their mainstreets, not local residents. I don't think people in suburbs or exurbs are willing to live a traditional streetcar suburb lifestyle. Are they willing to buy groceries from a small-format store that has less selection, costs more and then haul their groceries hundreds of meters? Are they willing to go to a small local hardware store where many items will need to be ordered and forgo Lowes that has everything right away? Are they willing to take transit for the majority of their trips?

[eltodesukane]

Originally Posted by LeadingEdgeBoomer

I received a Leger Survey last week. It asked where I would like a new intercity bus terminal to be. I answered adjacent to the Via Rail station.

But how many people would transfer between the intercity bus and the VIA train?
It should be adjacent to a major transit connection, but it doesn't have to be the train station. Hurdman would be fine, Pimisi would be great, or Bayview...

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by acottawa

I think it is the same situation as the failure of rural main streets. People decry the loss of main street but then drive 40km to Walmart to save a few dollars. Modern streetcar suburbs rely on hipster tourism to maintain their mainstreets, not local residents. I don't think people in suburbs or exurbs are willing to live a traditional streetcar suburb lifestyle. Are they willing to buy groceries from a small-format store that has less selection, costs more and then haul their groceries hundreds of meters? Are they willing to go to a small local hardware store where many items will need to be ordered and forgo Lowes that has everything right away? Are they willing to take transit for the majority of their trips?

That does point to a major challenge, doesn't it? People have fallen in love with big box stores with hectares of parking. How do we convince that there is a better way?

On the other hand, the Glebe (for example) has a main street supermarket and a smaller scale Home Hardware. These things are designed for locals so there is some hope.

I personally love my local Farm Boy and perhaps I am in a minority, that I prefer to shop in smaller stores instead of the local Loblaws Superstore, Costco and Walmart. I like getting in, doing my business and getting out without walking kms to find what I need.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by eltodesukane

But how many people would transfer between the intercity bus and the VIA train?
It should be adjacent to a major transit connection, but it doesn't have to be the train station. Hurdman would be fine, Pimisi would be great, or Bayview...

You are right about a bus station be connected to local transit. But not Pimisi or Bayview. We need to reserve this for urban development.

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

When we can't even set solid density standards without backlash, you shouldn't expect great design standards on top. And all this stems from the attitude that you've displayed on here, where insisting on various requirements is equated with authoritarianism. Well, if we can't tell developers how dense to build, you shouldn't expect the city to be able to dictate how well designed a neighbourhood should be either.



To paraphrase another poster on one of the Cyrville development threads, this area could go from zero to hero in the coming years. Just go look at what is being proposed at 1082 Cyrville and 1178 Cummings. And there's a lot more to come.

I detest huge condos. But I would argue that the area around Cyrville has been decent to date. The area near Ogilvie has a lot of townhomes and triplexes (not sure if they even predate the Transitway station). The buildings near the station are low/mid rise with larger units than anything you'll find in the core. The only thing lacking is mixed use. The next developments are bringing that. And there's still plenty of real estate west of the station that is ripe for redevelopment. I think the area is going to be a gentrification gem over the coming decade. Not too many places that have this many large lots available to build up near a station.

And to anybody complaining about Cyrville, let me ask if you've really looked at any other station in the East? From the industrial area around Trim, to St-Laurent sandwiched between a mall and a freeway, to Blair, located until recently (with the high rise apartment buildings next door) hundreds of meters from all residential areas, the scene isn't exactly great. Cyrville has more residents in walking distance than any other station east of Hurdman. And that's going up with all these developments.



This is literally what the "Not Just Bikes" videos were about. And he makes it pretty clear that the reason we don't have this kind of development is the very high level of R1 zoning in our cities today. And I'm willing to bet money that the proportion zoned R1 gets higher as you get further from the core. Which definitively rules out the streetcar suburbs that existed in the past.

I'll post his video again:


And in case that video wasn't clear enough, he makes it even more clear in this one that zoning is the problem:

• Video Link

So again. Why throw good money after bad? The exurbs are pretty much all R1. The suburbs still have a ton of R1 with no redevelopment in sight for a long time to come. Any transit provided requires an insane amount of subsidy per rider. Unless we can implement zoned fares that recover a lot of the higher cost or impose different tax rates, there's not going to be much of a case for boosting service.

On the other hand, all those areas seeing bungalows turned into triplexes? They are on a path to recreating the streetcar suburbs.

He has his theory that it's all about zoning which suggests it's easily fixed, at least in the long term. I'm not so sure. In Holland it's a lot about density. New York city also has large swaths with mixed development and small stores, that like Amsterdam are much more expensive. In both cases people go every few days because they don't have cars and have small pantries and fridges.

Doesn't Houston have no zoning regulations? It's far from walkable.

Originally Posted by acottawa

I think it is the same situation as the failure of rural main streets. People decry the loss of main street but then drive 40km to Walmart to save a few dollars. Modern streetcar suburbs rely on hipster tourism to maintain their mainstreets, not local residents. I don't think people in suburbs or exurbs are willing to live a traditional streetcar suburb lifestyle. Are they willing to buy groceries from a small-format store that has less selection, costs more and then haul their groceries hundreds of meters? Are they willing to go to a small local hardware store where many items will need to be ordered and forgo Lowes that has everything right away? Are they willing to take transit for the majority of their trips?

Exactly. I live in New Edinburgh and it does look like he describes. Apartments, duplexes, leafy SFH all on the same street. Despite this density and Vanier on the other side it is barely able to support much retail (without the hipster tourists) . Even the grocery store seems to depend on drive through traffic.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Please go through my history and pull out where I said that.

Not supporting the Bank St subway doesn't mean that I only support one transit line through the city.

You have opposed interlining the Trillium Line in the past. You have stated that you would prefer to invest our money in maximizing the capacity of the C-Line and continue to force everybody to use it instead of investing in something new. You have stated that you would prefer to have a closely parallel line to the C-Line instead of investing in routes that serve other parts of the city.

Our transit system does cover a "wide range of destinations".

The debate is whether that level of service should be extended to ex-urban areas. And given that they still insist on car dependent build forms, the business case for such investment is low.

One line cannot possibly do this. No more than 10% of the population will be within walking distance of the C-Line on full build-out. Having 70% of the population within 5km of rail is not really much of an achievement.

My bigger concern is how we are gutting neighbourhood transit. We cut service in October 2019. We are about to cut service again 'temporarily' in June and we are considering other cuts. I don't believe 'temporary' cuts are temporary considering our planning based almost entirely only on capacity.

We need to invest in transit more broadly. Exurban transit is a tiny component, but it needs to work for those few, rather than making guaranteed failure, which is what you have been suggesting.

Investment follows demand. And it has always been this way. As long we keep widening highways building the standard suburban home with 2-4 parking spots (when you count the garage) and 6-10 car driveways in the exurbs, there will never be a case to improve transit because their neighbourhoods are literally designed to be best experienced from the inside of a car.

We need to support ideas that allow for a general reduction in auto-dependence, even in small ways. Few people have 6 to 10 cars in their driveways. That is a false generalization not much different than everybody in the country are Ford F150 cowboys.

And yet all over Vanier, New Edinburgh, Westboro, Old Ottawa East and South, we see old homes being redeveloped into duplexes and triplexes. And most of those areas have nothing but a bus every 10-20 mins.

A bus every 10 or 20 minutes, just means that there will be multiple cars in the driveway or on the street. We need to be careful on how we re-develop neighbourhoods, that we are actually improving them and not destroying their character. We see good design and bad. My neighbourhood has seen enormous amounts of infill housing. Some of it is good, most of it is just OK. Some is just horrible, and out of scale, where the owner built just to fit in maxes allowed by zoning.

When the province ponies up (as they do in the GTA), OC Transpo can integrate with the transit services these exurbs run.

Fair enough, but you have opposed even provincial funding because some of that comes from all taxpayers. Unfortunately, that is an impossible restriction. We need to realize that the Ottawa economic area is increasingly expanding beyond our boundaries. This is a natural result of becoming a larger city, just as Montreal's and Toronto's economic area have expanded beyond both city's boundaries.

As I have pointed out, Ottawa refuses to even serve a major employer within its boundaries, Amazon. What is the impact of that? All employees must arrive by auto, which supports auto dependence even for low paid workers and encourages people to look for lower cost housing outside the city limits.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Please go through my history and pull out where I said that.

Not supporting the Bank St subway doesn't mean that I only support one transit line through the city.



Our transit system does cover a "wide range of destinations".

The debate is whether that level of service should be extended to ex-urban areas. And given that they still insist on car dependent build forms, the business case for such investment is low.



Investment follows demand. And it has always been this way. As long we keep widening highways building the standard suburban home with 2-4 parking spots (when you count the garage) and 6-10 car driveways in the exurbs, there will never be a case to improve transit because their neighbourhoods are literally designed to be best experienced from the inside of a car.



And yet all over Vanier, New Edinburgh, Westboro, Old Ottawa East and South, we see old homes being redeveloped into duplexes and triplexes. And most of those areas have nothing but a bus every 10-20 mins.



When the province ponies up (as they do in the GTA), OC Transpo can integrate with the transit services these exurbs run.

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

When we can't even set solid density standards without backlash, you shouldn't expect great design standards on top. And all this stems from the attitude that you've displayed on here, where insisting on various requirements is equated with authoritarianism. Well, if we can't tell developers how dense to build, you shouldn't expect the city to be able to dictate how well designed a neighbourhood should be either.



To paraphrase another poster on one of the Cyrville development threads, this area could go from zero to hero in the coming years. Just go look at what is being proposed at 1082 Cyrville and 1178 Cummings. And there's a lot more to come.

I detest huge condos. But I would argue that the area around Cyrville has been decent to date. The area near Ogilvie has a lot of townhomes and triplexes (not sure if they even predate the Transitway station). The buildings near the station are low/mid rise with larger units than anything you'll find in the core. The only thing lacking is mixed use. The next developments are bringing that. And there's still plenty of real estate west of the station that is ripe for redevelopment. I think the area is going to be a gentrification gem over the coming decade. Not too many places that have this many large lots available to build up near a station.

And to anybody complaining about Cyrville, let me ask if you've really looked at any other station in the East? From the industrial area around Trim, to St-Laurent sandwiched between a mall and a freeway, to Blair, located until recently (with the high rise apartment buildings next door) hundreds of meters from all residential areas, the scene isn't exactly great. Cyrville has more residents in walking distance than any other station east of Hurdman. And that's going up with all these developments.



This is literally what the "Not Just Bikes" videos were about. And he makes it pretty clear that the reason we don't have this kind of development is the very high level of R1 zoning in our cities today. And I'm willing to bet money that the proportion zoned R1 gets higher as you get further from the core. Which definitively rules out the streetcar suburbs that existed in the past.

I'll post his video again:

• Video Link

And in case that video wasn't clear enough, he makes it even more clear in this one that zoning is the problem:

• Video Link

So again. Why throw good money after bad? The exurbs are pretty much all R1. The suburbs still have a ton of R1 with no redevelopment in sight for a long time to come. Any transit provided requires an insane amount of subsidy per rider. Unless we can implement zoned fares that recover a lot of the higher cost or impose different tax rates, there's not going to be much of a case for boosting service.

On the other hand, all those areas seeing bungalows turned into triplexes? They are on a path to recreating the streetcar suburbs.

The problem as I see it is the initial design of neighbourhoods. What has been built since the war. Do it better from the beginning. The challenge is when you try to shoe horn different housing types into existing neighbourhoods. This guarantees NIMBYs. The existing home owners inevitably face developers who want to maximize profits and push the limits. It is not just R1 zoning. Hence, housing that almost always exceeds agreed to height limits. No, 4 or 6 stories are not enough. Let's make it 9 or 12 stories. Or housing that goes lot line to lot line and is one inch below height maximums badly dwarfing neighbouring housing. It is profit, and not making a cohesive and attractive look. The video shows what is possible if done well. It is often done very badly. And the desire to not follow setbacks. This makes any neighbourhood unappealing. Oddly, in my neighbourhood, I see setbacks that exceed the neighbouring houses. Why did that happen? The newer houses pushed back further than the original houses.

It is not so easy to replace SFHs built in the 1950s or 1960s and make for an attractive outcome. The video is overly optimistic in this regard, and where this is successful, it is already neighbourhoods with a diversity of housing or within walking distance of a traditional main street. Where have we actually seen the successful conversion of a car-centric main street to a traditional main street? That is so difficult to achieve.

On Cyrville, let's hope for a better future, however, I have seen Cyrville crater in my life time. What is left of the old walkable village? It is almost 100% demolished for car-centric development. It is a pity that Cyrville Road in the centre of the village was not improved instead of outright demolished, but this also what we see these days, where demolition seems to be the easiest route. I don't think that is in keeping with the goals of the video either. Mass demolition should not be the route to go in most cases.