Quote:
Originally Posted by Doady
Toronto city proper is mostly post-war suburbia: Etobicoke, North York and Scarborough, and northeast Scarborough of course includes farmland and Rouge Park. How much farmland is in Brooklyn? The City of Toronto is denser than Staten Island, at least.
|
Yes... THAT'S THE POINT. Most of the city is post-war suburbia despite containing the inner less than 1/2 of the metro area population. That's not a reasonable way to use your land if you want to both grow quickly and not sprawl outward.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doady
[B]See? I can cherrypick examples too. If you want to do a proper comparison, then just look at the old city of Toronto, the density is probably not 1/3 of Brooklyn. Look at the density of the Toronto urban area compared to the New York City urban area. Compare the amount of high-rises per capita of the cities and the metropolitan areas of Toronto and New York.
|
I'm not cherry picking; you just don't like the implications and are desperate to make up any nonsense excuse to discount them.
I was very careful to use appropriate examples, if anything erring on the side of being overly generous to Toronto by bypassing Manhattan while including the old city of Toronto in with the current Toronto proper. If we were to do a truly accurate comparison it would be to NYC proper vs Toronto city proper, both of which contain just under half their metro area's population, or the old City of Toronto compared to Manhattan, the centre of each city. But my intention isn't to compare it to NYC in particular but rather to simply illustrate the density potential. And I didn't use Manhattan since the density doesn't need to be anywhere near that high. It just needs to be
not low on a global scale.
Either way, the number of highrises isn't the relevant metric. What's important is the number of people the city is able to house relative to its available land. The fact that Toronto has dense areas and a higher highrise proportion is irrelevant to the point which is that the city and metro area aren't dense enough to reasonably house the number of people it's being asked to house.
[QUOTE=Doady;9401978]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doady
Lack of density and high-rise construction is not the real issue here. Solving this won't be about Toronto becoming the Brooklyn of the North. This is a multi-faceted problem, and it is not about one city or one neighbourhood either. To reduce this debate to too many single-family houses in the City of Toronto proper is not going to fix the problem, and it might even make it worse. The NIMBYs and the development lobby, both are equally to blame, both have too much control of the narrative and the policies. We need to stop reducing such big and complex issues to one variable, to one municipality, because that's part of the problem to begin with.
|
No one is reducing it to one issue as i acknowledged that it's a multi-faceted problem on my initial post.
I called you out because you're claiming that other people are denying the role of important factors in order to overly focus on one, when in reality you want to deny the role of that one important factor and focus only on others. YOU'RE the one not willing to consider all facets of the problem.
Threaded Mode