• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Cost of housing in Canada

This makes no sense, and you've completely lost perspective on this issue.

Are you serious trying to imply that a change in municipal land use and infrastructure planning philosophy rises to the level of a charter breach?
Perhaps you are the one that has lost perspective. Your posts seem to equate urban planning with altruism. Urban planners take their direction from city managers, who take their direction from politicians. Hence, biases/agendas/visions invariably enter the fray.
 
The whole "15 minute city" thing has been so distorted by both sides that it's toxic to most normal people.

It isn't about taking away people's cars, or forcing people to live in megacities like in Judge Dredd.... It's about urban planning, and zoning for more low rise apartments/condos with commercial space. It's about giving people the option to walk rather than drive.

Nobody is coming for your truck, or car, and they aren't coming for your yard.

Edit: I also fond it kinda hilarious that the people making a fuss about the "15 minute city" tend to be people who don't live in cities anyway. It's like city people complaining that rural people having yards that are too big...

they don't 'need' to come for your car, when they mandate EV etc they have already fired the first shot. It's just like firearms ownership, they just want to shrink the 'problem' over time. It's death by slowly boiling the water...
 
Perhaps you are the one that has lost perspective. Your posts seem to equate urban planning with altruism. Urban planners take their direction from city managers, who take their direction from politicians. Hence, biases/agendas/visions invariably enter the fray.
No. My posts equate urban planning as an omnipresent aspect of municipal responsibility, the existence of which being a constant in shaping our lives over the last century. The theories have changed, and will change. The biases/agendas/visions have changed, and will change. But the act of municipal planning has been constant. It's continued evolution is not some right infringing boogeyman.
 
That said, it never ceases to amaze me how Europe keeps being trotted out as an example of why we should be okay with municipally (and higher) applying forcing functions/pressures to bias life towards 15-minute cities.
There are other examples too, New York, etc.

To put in perspective how lowly densified Toronto is heres some numbers.
Toronto 4149.5/sqkm
Paris 20,000/sqkm
New York 11,232/sqkm
Ottawa 317/sqkm

There are lots of benefits to densification for large cities. Less time commuting, cheaper costs of living, cheaper administrative/Infrastructure costs, etc.

Personally I would rather the solution being spreading the jobs out across the country and having more spread out living but we don’t wish to do that. Instead we choose to pack them into the city centers despite thanks to technology there is no longer a need.

I know I am living the opposite life of a 15 min city, in a low density city. That being said when I lived in larger cities I always preferred the idea of being able to get to where I need easily without a vehicle. No need to struggle with parking. No need to fight traffic. Etc.
 
No. My posts equate urban planning as an omnipresent aspect of municipal responsibility, the existence of which being a constant in shaping our lives over the last century. The theories have changed, and will change. The biases/agendas/visions have changed, and will change. But the act of municipal planning has been constant. It's continued evolution is not some right infringing boogeyman.
The left and the centrists infringe as well.
 
This makes no sense, and you've completely lost perspective on this issue.

Are you serious trying to imply that a change in municipal land use and infrastructure planning philosophy rises to the level of a charter breach?
You said that people in a municipality should accept that their choices for how they live in the municipality are determined by the manner in which the electorate votes the politicians, and if they doubt like that, to vote differently next time. The plural vote of an electorate should not be taken as justification to restrict personal choice, where such choice remains legally protected by charter rights. Not a hard concept to understand.
 
Taking everything together, I don't see "them" trying to offer choices; I see "them" trying to shape how people live. "They" are running out of options for energy and running out of fiscal capacity. "They" know this. Generally there are two options: increase, or conserve. "They" are pretty much fixated on the latter.
 
You said that people in a municipality should accept that their choices for how they live in the municipality are determined by the manner in which the electorate votes the politicians, and if they doubt like that, to vote differently next time. The plural vote of an electorate should not be taken as justification to restrict personal choice, where such choice remains legally protected by charter rights. Not a hard concept to understand.
What personal choice is being restricted?
Better yet, exactly what legally protected charter right is being infringed upon?
 
they don't 'need' to come for your car, when they mandate EV etc they have already fired the first shot. It's just like firearms ownership, they just want to shrink the 'problem' over time. It's death by slowly boiling the water...

If you set aside the massive environmental impact of rare earth mining along with limits in our power grid, EVs, or alternatives like hydrogen powered vehicles, make complete sense for densely populated cities. Mandating that is a different story....
 
There are other examples too, New York, etc.

To put in perspective how lowly densified Toronto is heres some numbers.
Toronto 4149.5/sqkm
Paris 20,000/sqkm
New York 11,232/sqkm
Ottawa 317/sqkm

There are lots of benefits to densification for large cities. Less time commuting, cheaper costs of living, cheaper administrative/Infrastructure costs, etc.
An oft forgotten benefit to less dense population…and particularly relevant in the case of Toronto (and arguably Ottawa) is the important place that green space contributes to reduced environmental strain of the city on its surroundings. Toronto has one of the greatest ratios of green-to-concrete in N.America, which is important for reducing CO2 impact on the environment, as the greenery converts CO2 to O2.
1690385820288.png
So which is it we want? Compressed increased density, or balanced environmental and social responsibility?
 
An oft forgotten benefit to less dense population…and particularly relevant in the case of Toronto (and arguably Ottawa) is the important place that green space contributes to reduced environmental strain of the city on its surroundings. Toronto has one of the greatest ratios of green-to-concrete in N.America, which is important for reducing CO2 impact on the environment, as the greenery converts CO2 to O2.
View attachment 79065
So which is it we want? Compressed increased density, or balanced environmental and social responsibility?

Yes.
 
There are other examples too, New York, etc.

To put in perspective how lowly densified Toronto is heres some numbers.
Toronto 4149.5/sqkm
Paris 20,000/sqkm
New York 11,232/sqkm
Ottawa 317/sqkm

There are lots of benefits to densification for large cities. Less time commuting, cheaper costs of living, cheaper administrative/Infrastructure costs, etc.

Personally I would rather the solution being spreading the jobs out across the country and having more spread out living but we don’t wish to do that. Instead we choose to pack them into the city centers despite thanks to technology there is no longer a need.

I know I am living the opposite life of a 15 min city, in a low density city. That being said when I lived in larger cities I always preferred the idea of being able to get to where I need easily without a vehicle. No need to struggle with parking. No need to fight traffic. Etc.
is that figure for the city of Toronto, or for Toronto and its environs?
 
An oft forgotten benefit to less dense population…and particularly relevant in the case of Toronto (and arguably Ottawa) is the important place that green space contributes to reduced environmental strain of the city on its surroundings. Toronto has one of the greatest ratios of green-to-concrete in N.America, which is important for reducing CO2 impact on the environment, as the greenery converts CO2 to O2.
View attachment 79065
So which is it we want? Compressed increased density, or balanced environmental and social responsibility?
Greatest ratio of concrete to greenery means nothing when it is taking up substantially more land with concrete/roadways to accomplish what can be done in a much smaller area thereby leaving the other land green.

It also means a lot less when that much more spread out population requires more resources to heat homes, much more resources to commute, etc.

I am not seeing much of a environmental argument based off how poorly structured Toronto is.
is that figure for the city of Toronto, or for Toronto and its environs?
Unsure, that is the results of population density for Toronto.
 
Just because you choose not to see it, doesn’t mean it doesn’t have a positive impact environmentally.
He's not saying that urban greenspace doesn't have a positive impact. He's saying that you're comparing apples to fish when you try to imply that the only alternative to suburbs and sprawl is taking up the same amount of space but covering it in concrete and highrises.

Still waiting on those charter right infringements btw
 
Just because you choose not to see it, doesn’t mean it doesn’t have a positive impact environmentally.

Saving 47,000MWh/year and storing over 1 million times of carbon isn’t insignificant.

Toronto Tree Planting Strategy
Written for politicians in tiny vision environment (a city as opposed to a province or country) trying to highlight a environmental policy to pretend they are doing something well refusing to calculate the other costs to their ‘policy’.

Again a denser population doesn’t use nearly as much resources, I bet if they did the math on even doubling the population density of Toronto it would have substantial reductions in emissions per capita.

Densifying a population doesn’t mean chopping down all the trees either. It means instead of having a ton of single dwelling homes you start building upwards and have more multi-story homes, apartment buildings/condos, etc. It means not having to take a car into work for 2 hour commutes each way and wasting all that fuel idling in traffic going nowhere anytime soon.
 
Written for politicians in tiny vision environment (a city as opposed to a province or country) trying to highlight a environmental policy to pretend they are doing something well refusing to calculate the other costs to their ‘policy’.

Again a denser population doesn’t use nearly as much resources, I bet if they did the math on even doubling the population density of Toronto it would have substantial reductions in emissions per capita.

Densifying a population doesn’t mean chopping down all the trees either. It means instead of having a ton of single dwelling homes you start building upwards and have more multi-story homes, apartment buildings/condos, etc. It means not having to take a car into work for 2 hour commutes each way and wasting all that fuel idling in traffic going nowhere anytime soon.

Green-positive plans: political claptrap

15-minute city plan: political value


Got it…
 
He's not saying that urban greenspace doesn't have a positive impact. He's saying that you're comparing apples to fish when you try to imply that the only alternative to suburbs and sprawl is taking up the same amount of space but covering it in concrete and highrises.

Only alternative?
1690399542743.gif

Still waiting on those charter right infringements btw
Taken to extremes, including the trend line you proposed where the municipality represents the will of the people to acceptably enforce structure to the lives of those in its jurisdiction, can reasonable to some (obviously not your state-focused ‘best for the people, by (enough of) the people, Section 6 of the Charter, Rights of Mobility.
 
Back
Top