King-Victoria Transit Hub

[clasher]

I'd be happy with a grocery store where the old terminal was... easy enough to build some towers on top of it as well.

[tomh009]

I'd be happy with a grocery store where the old terminal was... easy enough to build some towers on top of it as well.

There is no shortage of potential locations for an urban-format grocery store in DTK. What we really need is someone who believes enough in DTK to open a store here.

[clasher]

I'd be happy with a grocery store where the old terminal was... easy enough to build some towers on top of it as well.

There is no shortage of potential locations for an urban-format grocery store in DTK. What we really need is someone who believes enough in DTK to open a store here.

Totally agree, I'd be happy with one those smaller urban format stores even, but shoppers is half-way there already so I will probably be waiting a few years more.

[ac3r]

I'd be happy with a grocery store where the old terminal was... easy enough to build some towers on top of it as well.

You're more likely going to see an affordable housing development go up there... :') Everyone from student and professional architects and politicians have been considering that site to be put to something other than yet another condo development that only a tiny handful of wealthy people will ever hope to live in. We're in dire need of affordable housing, and that land is being considered.

[tomh009]

I'd be happy with a grocery store where the old terminal was... easy enough to build some towers on top of it as well.

You're more likely going to see an affordable housing development go up there... :') Everyone from student and professional architects and politicians have been considering that site to be put to something other than yet another condo development that only a tiny handful of wealthy people will ever hope to live in. We're in dire need of affordable housing, and that land is being considered.

Quite possibly it could happen. But that is one of the most valuable pieces of land in DTK, so it would be hard to justify using it for affordable housing. The region could sell the property, buy a less expensive one with the proceeds and spend the difference funding the construction. (There are many available properties further (Kitchener) east on both Charles and King, and still very convenient to the LRT.

And they could still mandate that a percentage of the units that are built need to be affordable, however that is defined in this contect.

[ijmorlan]

Quite possibly it could happen. But that is one of the most valuable pieces of land in DTK, so it would be hard to justify using it for affordable housing. The region could sell the property, buy a less expensive one with the proceeds and spend the difference funding the construction. (There are many available properties further (Kitchener) east on both Charles and King, and still very convenient to the LRT.

Well said. The laws of economics apply everywhere, not just in the unfettered free market.

I recall reading something somewhere which pointed out that it’s no surprise that it’s hard to supply affordable housing in Manhattan. Who knew that nearly free housing in Manhattan would be so popular?

[danbrotherston]

Quite possibly it could happen. But that is one of the most valuable pieces of land in DTK, so it would be hard to justify using it for affordable housing. The region could sell the property, buy a less expensive one with the proceeds and spend the difference funding the construction. (There are many available properties further (Kitchener) east on both Charles and King, and still very convenient to the LRT.

Well said. The laws of economics apply everywhere, not just in the unfettered free market.

I recall reading something somewhere which pointed out that it’s no surprise that it’s hard to supply affordable housing in Manhattan. Who knew that nearly free housing in Manhattan would be so popular?

I think this points to a bigger failure.

Why is the land in DTK so valuable, what is provided here that isn't provided in the rest of the city. This isn't a particularly large downtown, there isn't the same prestige for companies or people to locate here as say downtown Toronto.

So why is housing here so valuable, is it...perhaps...artificial scarcity, both of housing downtown (we have huge swaths of legislated single family housing), not to mention the legislated scarcity of walkable, transit friendly neighbourhoods in the rest of the city.

Yes, maybe we could make more affordable housing by buying suburban sprawl housing, but that's not necessarily a good (because the last thing recipients of affordable housing need to be forced to buy is a car), or equitable policy (why should only the wealthy get to enjoy a car free lifestyle).

[panamaniac]

I'd be happy with a grocery store where the old terminal was... easy enough to build some towers on top of it as well.

You're more likely going to see an affordable housing development go up there... :') Everyone from student and professional architects and politicians have been considering that site to be put to something other than yet another condo development that only a tiny handful of wealthy people will ever hope to live in. We're in dire need of affordable housing, and that land is being considered.

On a site like that, I wouldn’t see it as an either/or - a supermarket could work well in the podium of a project with affordable housing components, istm.

[tomh009]

Artificial scarcity (zoning and NIMBYs) plays a part, for sure. But non-artificial scarcity (next to Victoria Park and a short walk to many employers, restaurants and bars) is another factor why this particular property is so valuable.

In this particular case, if the region is looking at building an affordable-focused/affordable-only building (similar to what Kitchener Housing provides) there are certainly less expensive properties available that don't require car ownership. The east end has plenty of (less expensive) land ready for redevelopment, next to the LRT, not far from the IHT and a 15-20 minute walk from DTK.

[panamaniac]

Artificial scarcity (zoning and NIMBYs) plays a part, for sure. But non-artificial scarcity (next to Victoria Park and a short walk to many employers, restaurants and bars) is another factor why this particular property is so valuable.

In this particular case, if the region is looking at building an affordable-focused/affordable-only building (similar to what Kitchener Housing provides) there are certainly less expensive properties available that don't require car ownership. The east end has plenty of (less expensive) land ready for redevelopment, next to the LRT, not far from the IHT and a 15-20 minute walk from DTK.

The industrial site next to Mill Stn, for example, would seem a very good spot for some form of public/affordable housing.  Same for a number of sites in the Charles/Borden/Ottawa area.

[dtkvictim]

As for our transit hub, I don't think HSR has anything to do with it's success, AD2W GO is far more influential, while I fully support HSR, the plan was not to improve the tracks between here and Toronto beyond the AD2W GO plan (which the Conservatives have also scrapped by the way).

Do you have a link for what the Conservatives have scrapped? Are you referring to track upgrades? My understanding was the the incremental changes required for AD2W GO were under way (track upgrades in the Guelph subdivision, electrification studies). All I see from googling is that they voted against passing a motion to commit to a timeline. But from the Metrolinx board meeting and town hall that I watched it seemed liked they had already approved the business case, and were completing it by doing more incremental changes to slowly increase service.

[ijmorlan]

I think this points to a bigger failure.

Why is the land in DTK so valuable, what is provided here that isn't provided in the rest of the city. This isn't a particularly large downtown, there isn't the same prestige for companies or people to locate here as say downtown Toronto.

So why is housing here so valuable, is it...perhaps...artificial scarcity, both of housing downtown (we have huge swaths of legislated single family housing), not to mention the legislated scarcity of walkable, transit friendly neighbourhoods in the rest of the city.

Yes, maybe we could make more affordable housing by buying suburban sprawl housing, but that's not necessarily a good (because the last thing recipients of affordable housing need to be forced to buy is a car), or equitable policy (why should only the wealthy get to enjoy a car free lifestyle).

Excellent question. I agree that the zoning rules, which forbid building anything like the best parts of the city, are a big problem. So step 1 is to dramatically loosen zoning: eliminate all parking minima, make setbacks something that can be waived by the adjacent property owner, dramatically reduce the number of residential zones (in particular, everything from single-family to townhouses and small apartments should be a single category), allow residential in all commercial zones, and probably other things I haven’t mentioned. Of course, a lot of planners would be out of a job, but as long as we get to pick which ones are out of a job, that should be a significant improvement.

[danbrotherston]

Artificial scarcity (zoning and NIMBYs) plays a part, for sure. But non-artificial scarcity (next to Victoria Park and a short walk to many employers, restaurants and bars) is another factor why this particular property is so valuable.

In this particular case, if the region is looking at building an affordable-focused/affordable-only building (similar to what Kitchener Housing provides) there are certainly less expensive properties available that don't require car ownership. The east end has plenty of (less expensive) land ready for redevelopment, next to the LRT, not far from the IHT and a 15-20 minute walk from DTK.

I think being close to a large park, and restaurants and bars and employers is an artificial scarcity.

I agree that there could be other locations, near the LRT that could be better but the whole line is gentrifying right now. And outside of uptown, downtown, maybe midtown most of the neighborhoods aren’t particularly walkable even with the LRT. That’s not to say that they couldn’t be, but only if the artificial scarcity that makes DTK desirable disappears, which won’t until we stop sprawling. Sprawl ensures that sprawl/car oriented plazas will continue to dominate anywhere that there isn’t a density that can only be supported by high values.

[danbrotherston]

As for our transit hub, I don't think HSR has anything to do with it's success, AD2W GO is far more influential, while I fully support HSR, the plan was not to improve the tracks between here and Toronto beyond the AD2W GO plan (which the Conservatives have also scrapped by the way).

Do you have a link for what the Conservatives have scrapped? Are you referring to track upgrades? My understanding was the the incremental changes required for AD2W GO were under way (track upgrades in the Guelph subdivision, electrification studies). All I see from googling is that they voted against passing a motion to commit to a timeline. But from the Metrolinx board meeting and town hall that I watched it seemed liked they had already approved the business case, and were completing it by doing more incremental changes to slowly increase service.

They cancelled the bypass.  I don’t believe for a second they will succeed in convincing CN to give up their freight business on the corridor, and I don’t believe that the corridor can support reliable AD2W Go and freight, but Metrolinx is welcome to prove me wrong.

[dtkvictim]

Do you have a link for what the Conservatives have scrapped? Are you referring to track upgrades? My understanding was the the incremental changes required for AD2W GO were under way (track upgrades in the Guelph subdivision, electrification studies). All I see from googling is that they voted against passing a motion to commit to a timeline. But from the Metrolinx board meeting and town hall that I watched it seemed liked they had already approved the business case, and were completing it by doing more incremental changes to slowly increase service.

They cancelled the bypass.  I don’t believe for a second they will succeed in convincing CN to give up their freight business on the corridor, and I don’t believe that the corridor can support reliable AD2W Go and freight, but Metrolinx is welcome to prove me wrong.

Thanks, this gave me more to read, and I think I understand the situation better now. However, blaming it on the PCs seems incorrect unless I have the timeline wrong here. It seems like Metrolinx initially pursued the freight bypass, which the Liberals approved. Further planning for it showed the costs were higher than initially thought, so they began to consider alternatives. And from what I could tell, it seemed like Metrolinx was the ones to recommend sharing the Halton subdivision as a better option, not the PCs overruling them.

Although the dates I'm seeing on these articles and documents are all over the place, so I'm a bit confused since I wasn't following this in real-time.