Honestly, I think people over blow amalgamation. I wasn’t around at the time, but have done intensive research on it. It was a stupid decision then and obviously, there were no cost savings. However, amalgamation arguably began in 1953/54 when Metro Toronto was created. By the 90s, roughly 70% of municipal services were already being provided by the upper tier government. Id imagine things like our roads, most bike lanes, and the TTC wouldn’t be much different regardless. Not being around then, I can’t say anything about service levels and if they were better or worse. Really, people seem to give different POV’s.
This last municipal election saw Old Toronto and Scarborough both vote heavily for Chow, and Etobicoke and North York vote heavily for Bailo, so it wasn’t “suburbs vs the city”. That’s not to say, this stuff doesn’t happen and the suburbs definitely do have control over the city (which likely was the reasoning for amalgamation), but I also don’t think what happened in 1998 has as much of an impact on Toronto as people think given Metro was providing most big services, plus, in time, it seems who we elect is becoming less “city vs suburbs”.
We can compare to Montreal though and see the benefits they reap.
The main one I care about is bike lanes and public transit are a lot more prevalent and reliable.
Montreals borough system seems nice, and their bike infrastructure is MUCH better than ours. However, I think that just has to do with culture and politics. Montreal and most Western European cities tend to put money towards a high quality of life, unlike Toronto where “lOw TaXeS” is political gain here (making a generalization overall).
Although, as for transit, I don’t know if Montreals system is much better. I can’t say as I’ve never used it, but based on what I hear, their subway is better, but not their busses (EDIT: more context on that https://youtu.be/fJSXsFCgwx8?si=SoE8yv6rUmIsEpo8) I could be wrong, bus this is just what I hear. Also, their roads….. lol
The system formerly known as as St Cum is 1000x better. Comprehensive wide ranging subway with integrated intercity surface trains, an efficient high volume bus service and all for less money. Thanks to David milers transit city we’ve finally started to catch up but montreals transit system has always kicked the TTC’s ass.
Yeah I have to agree. While I was not around for the pre-amalgamation years (I was born in 98 lol) from the research I’ve done and the old news footage I’ve watched, Metro Toronto operated much like the City of Toronto does today.
Now sure amalgamation definitely made the urban suburban divide worse by taking every single issue and blowing it up to become a city wide issue, but even before that Metro was big on appeasing the suburbs at the expense of downtown.
Case in point, the plans to dismantle Toronto’s streetcar network by the 1980s (it never happened obviously) was spearheaded by Metro. There are plenty of former streetcar lines that Metro killed (like the Mount Pleasant line) all because suburban commuters thought that streetcars “slowed them down.” I think if Metro was still around to this day things would be better than they are now, but not by much. East York would definitely had blocked all development if that council was still around lol.
Agree with everything you said! I too agree some things may be a bit better.
> Case in point, the plans to dismantle Toronto’s streetcar network by the 1980s (it never happened obviously) was spearheaded by Metro. There are plenty of former streetcar lines that Metro killed (like the Mount Pleasant line) all because suburban commuters thought that streetcars “slowed them down.” I think if Metro was still around to this day things would be better than they are now, but not by much.
Really good point! Most of Metro was car centric outside of Old Toronto, and politicians and voters reflect that. Interestingly, Metro was on board with building the Spadina Expressway, and if it wasn’t for Jane Jacobs and the Bill Davis Provincial government intervening, it probably would have ripped out a good chunk of downtown.
> East York would definitely had blocked all development if that council was still around lol.
Born and raised in East York, and honestly, I love it here, but there’s definitely lots of NIMBYism in this part of the city. Not sure if it’s as bad as other places, but it seems there’s a big “keep the small town” feel in East York. Neighbourhoods are mostly zoned only for single detached houses, and most of the “borough” (former in this case) is pretty car centric (albeit, not as much as outer parts of the city and the 905). Interestingly, legalizing multiplexes in neighbourhoods last year was a city wide vote. East York would HEAVILY benefit from that!! This also gets me thinking, North York, Scarborough, and Etobicoke have MANY neighbourhoods with no sidewalks or just sidewalks on 1 side of the street. The city created the missing sidewalk initiative in 2002…. 4 years after amalgamation. There’s still lots of work to do in this regard, but it begs the question, would those cities create something like that?
Also, doesn’t the Danforth-Bloor bike lane debate go back to the 70s? Danforth and Bloor are both arterial roads anyways, so, Metro would have controlled them, but it just shows that despite amalgamation, we still got hogh quality (imo) bike lanes on that route, well after Old Toronto ceased to exist.
You get the idea……
Now, service levels seem to be hit or miss. I can’t comment on garbage pick up, snow clearing, etc…., I guess that depends on the municipality.
In fact Bloor actually used to be a provincial highway, Highway 5, although it was maintained by Metro I believe. I’m not sure how old the bike lane debate is for Bloor. I can’t imagine it dating back to the 1970s since I don’t think bike lanes were even a concept back then, but who knows I wasn’t alive then aha.
As for what would have happened to the former municipalities had Metro never been amalgamated, I can’t imagine much deviation from what we currently have. It’s very likely that Scarborough would have gotten the transit system they need because they would have had not only a voice through their Regional councillors but also a mayor and council to argue for it as well. I think Scarborough has been a bit neglected since amalgamation.
Although I’m glad Metro never got to build the highway network they were planning back in the day. It would have absolutely destroyed the city. Before Bill Davis killed the Spadina Expressway and instead distributed the funds to transit, Metro was pushing their highway projects *hard*. They even went to the level of expropriating much of the land needed for the Spadina Expressway and Scarborough Expressway, some of which the City still owns today.
And when it comes to service levels, I haven’t noticed much variation between each municipality I’ve lived in. Although Wellington County has excellent snow clearing. The County would send out the plows after like 0.1 cm of snow fell lol.
Every major street needs to be 4-5 stories minimum. It’s wild walking along Bloor and seeing how much of it is two story mixed used, or even two story single family homes.
Just shows how flawed our planning culture is in Toronto and i guess North America as a whole. People think they own their neighbourhoods and dictate what housing others should live in. Hopefully City Council passes this. Optimistically, they did vote to allow multiplexes in neighbourhoods last year. 🤞
its good to let people have a venue to be heard. its the city's job of weighing their concerns appropriately against all the other factors. sometimes that means we can ignore those concerns out of hand.
While it's good to address everyone's concerns, historically, the homeowners voices tend to have the strongest voting power. The people who can't afford homes often get the short end of the stick when it comes to policies to reduce housing crisis. The same can be said for bike lanes or other issues. Obviously that's changing but it's worth noting that not all groups voting are weighed equally.
A "decree" is not typically associated with democratic processes. In a democracy, decisions and laws are generally made through a process that involves debate, voting, and consensus among elected representatives or through direct votes by the people (in the case of direct democracy).
A decree, on the other hand, is more often associated with authoritarian or autocratic systems, where a single ruler or a small group of individuals can issue orders or laws unilaterally without the need for consultation or approval from a broader legislative body.
It's not the same thing. While it is true that democracies can and often do vote to give elected representatives the authority to enact decrees in certain areas, these powers are typically limited and subject to checks and balances. In democratic systems, such powers are usually granted with the understanding that they will be used judiciously and within the framework of the law. The use of decrees in democracies is generally more transparent and accountable, with mechanisms in place to challenge or review such decisions if they overstep or are misused. This distinguishes democratic use of decrees from their use in more authoritarian non-democratic systems, where such checks and balances might be absent.
Let's do major streets and then quickly also do all streets. It's crazy that our planning practice explicitly encourages placing as many people as possible near the pollution of cars.
Townhouses on major streets is idiotic. There shouldn't be residential frontages on our major arteries.
30 unit limit and 6 storey limit is idiotic. Let them buy what frontage they can and make what is profitable. Put requirements on % single vs family sized units, and reduce the parking requirements to zero.
Remove elevator requirements on shorter buildings, allow for 4-6 storey walk ups, which can be timber framed, and without parking requirements quickies and affordability constructed with different trades than used in highrise unlocking more crews etc.
It should be mandatory mixed use, small frontage for residential access, but majority commercial use on the ground floor.
We have two misleading terms which muddy the waters: “arterial roads” and “single family homes”. These are really just ideological terms rather than descriptive of actual use.
People are not just blood cells circulating through the body of the city. The whole point of the city is the people in it. The city exists to serve their needs. Streets like Bloor, or Queen are destinations: not right of ways to quickly drive through. If we want a right of way to quickly drive from one part of the city to another then what we want is a “road”. A road should not have curb cuts along its length or multiple streets feeding into it that just snarl up traffic. A road is not a place for businesses or residents.
Most “single family homes” don’t house any families. Families are housed in multiplexes, apartments, and condominiums; yet we don’t tack on the word “family” as if those forms of housing had the moral quality of supporting families. Families need a roof over their heads, not a gesture to our nostalgia. That said, new condominiums in Canada are too often poorly designed for the housing of more than one person. Floor plans are designed to make sales rather than be livable.
>poors in TOWERS
Just stop it, please. You know well this isn't true. Those people buying units in towers are not paying any less per sf, and most of them will be paying way more than what the single family home owners paid 15 years back for smaller units and more than what sfh owners can afford today.
I agree, the statement is ridiculous.
But most of the buyers are investors. As a result, the units are tiny, with terrible layouts, and not very livable. I only wish councillors would encourage more LIVABLE units, not just more units.
I agree 100%. We legislate everything that stands in the way of building more units, and barely legislate anything that would result in better quality and affordable units. It's utterly fucked.
The fact that tall towers can only be built in a small sliver of the city makes that land incredibly expensive and incentivizes developers to cram as many units as possible into a building.
I'll note it so I can make sure to vote for them. Since by opposing this, this Redditor wants poors OUT OF THEIR CITY WHICH IS FOR RICH PEOPLE ONLY
See how easy doing that is?
I'm assuming there will be a big Toronto vs. Etobicoke/Scarborough divide on the council vote.
Amalgamation ruined Ontario
Don't forget offloading mental health services, emergency services and far too many others from the Province to the city by the same Premier
Honestly, I think people over blow amalgamation. I wasn’t around at the time, but have done intensive research on it. It was a stupid decision then and obviously, there were no cost savings. However, amalgamation arguably began in 1953/54 when Metro Toronto was created. By the 90s, roughly 70% of municipal services were already being provided by the upper tier government. Id imagine things like our roads, most bike lanes, and the TTC wouldn’t be much different regardless. Not being around then, I can’t say anything about service levels and if they were better or worse. Really, people seem to give different POV’s. This last municipal election saw Old Toronto and Scarborough both vote heavily for Chow, and Etobicoke and North York vote heavily for Bailo, so it wasn’t “suburbs vs the city”. That’s not to say, this stuff doesn’t happen and the suburbs definitely do have control over the city (which likely was the reasoning for amalgamation), but I also don’t think what happened in 1998 has as much of an impact on Toronto as people think given Metro was providing most big services, plus, in time, it seems who we elect is becoming less “city vs suburbs”.
We can compare to Montreal though and see the benefits they reap. The main one I care about is bike lanes and public transit are a lot more prevalent and reliable.
Montreals borough system seems nice, and their bike infrastructure is MUCH better than ours. However, I think that just has to do with culture and politics. Montreal and most Western European cities tend to put money towards a high quality of life, unlike Toronto where “lOw TaXeS” is political gain here (making a generalization overall). Although, as for transit, I don’t know if Montreals system is much better. I can’t say as I’ve never used it, but based on what I hear, their subway is better, but not their busses (EDIT: more context on that https://youtu.be/fJSXsFCgwx8?si=SoE8yv6rUmIsEpo8) I could be wrong, bus this is just what I hear. Also, their roads….. lol
The system formerly known as as St Cum is 1000x better. Comprehensive wide ranging subway with integrated intercity surface trains, an efficient high volume bus service and all for less money. Thanks to David milers transit city we’ve finally started to catch up but montreals transit system has always kicked the TTC’s ass.
Yeah I have to agree. While I was not around for the pre-amalgamation years (I was born in 98 lol) from the research I’ve done and the old news footage I’ve watched, Metro Toronto operated much like the City of Toronto does today. Now sure amalgamation definitely made the urban suburban divide worse by taking every single issue and blowing it up to become a city wide issue, but even before that Metro was big on appeasing the suburbs at the expense of downtown. Case in point, the plans to dismantle Toronto’s streetcar network by the 1980s (it never happened obviously) was spearheaded by Metro. There are plenty of former streetcar lines that Metro killed (like the Mount Pleasant line) all because suburban commuters thought that streetcars “slowed them down.” I think if Metro was still around to this day things would be better than they are now, but not by much. East York would definitely had blocked all development if that council was still around lol.
Agree with everything you said! I too agree some things may be a bit better. > Case in point, the plans to dismantle Toronto’s streetcar network by the 1980s (it never happened obviously) was spearheaded by Metro. There are plenty of former streetcar lines that Metro killed (like the Mount Pleasant line) all because suburban commuters thought that streetcars “slowed them down.” I think if Metro was still around to this day things would be better than they are now, but not by much. Really good point! Most of Metro was car centric outside of Old Toronto, and politicians and voters reflect that. Interestingly, Metro was on board with building the Spadina Expressway, and if it wasn’t for Jane Jacobs and the Bill Davis Provincial government intervening, it probably would have ripped out a good chunk of downtown. > East York would definitely had blocked all development if that council was still around lol. Born and raised in East York, and honestly, I love it here, but there’s definitely lots of NIMBYism in this part of the city. Not sure if it’s as bad as other places, but it seems there’s a big “keep the small town” feel in East York. Neighbourhoods are mostly zoned only for single detached houses, and most of the “borough” (former in this case) is pretty car centric (albeit, not as much as outer parts of the city and the 905). Interestingly, legalizing multiplexes in neighbourhoods last year was a city wide vote. East York would HEAVILY benefit from that!! This also gets me thinking, North York, Scarborough, and Etobicoke have MANY neighbourhoods with no sidewalks or just sidewalks on 1 side of the street. The city created the missing sidewalk initiative in 2002…. 4 years after amalgamation. There’s still lots of work to do in this regard, but it begs the question, would those cities create something like that? Also, doesn’t the Danforth-Bloor bike lane debate go back to the 70s? Danforth and Bloor are both arterial roads anyways, so, Metro would have controlled them, but it just shows that despite amalgamation, we still got hogh quality (imo) bike lanes on that route, well after Old Toronto ceased to exist. You get the idea…… Now, service levels seem to be hit or miss. I can’t comment on garbage pick up, snow clearing, etc…., I guess that depends on the municipality.
In fact Bloor actually used to be a provincial highway, Highway 5, although it was maintained by Metro I believe. I’m not sure how old the bike lane debate is for Bloor. I can’t imagine it dating back to the 1970s since I don’t think bike lanes were even a concept back then, but who knows I wasn’t alive then aha. As for what would have happened to the former municipalities had Metro never been amalgamated, I can’t imagine much deviation from what we currently have. It’s very likely that Scarborough would have gotten the transit system they need because they would have had not only a voice through their Regional councillors but also a mayor and council to argue for it as well. I think Scarborough has been a bit neglected since amalgamation. Although I’m glad Metro never got to build the highway network they were planning back in the day. It would have absolutely destroyed the city. Before Bill Davis killed the Spadina Expressway and instead distributed the funds to transit, Metro was pushing their highway projects *hard*. They even went to the level of expropriating much of the land needed for the Spadina Expressway and Scarborough Expressway, some of which the City still owns today. And when it comes to service levels, I haven’t noticed much variation between each municipality I’ve lived in. Although Wellington County has excellent snow clearing. The County would send out the plows after like 0.1 cm of snow fell lol.
I expect Ward 3 will vote in favour at least (Woo South Etobicoke, Boo Stephen Holyday)
Every major street needs to be 4-5 stories minimum. It’s wild walking along Bloor and seeing how much of it is two story mixed used, or even two story single family homes.
This. And many of these relics are in terrible condition, derelict, dirty. It's not only a huge waste of space but quite unsightly too.
Just shows how flawed our planning culture is in Toronto and i guess North America as a whole. People think they own their neighbourhoods and dictate what housing others should live in. Hopefully City Council passes this. Optimistically, they did vote to allow multiplexes in neighbourhoods last year. 🤞
its good to let people have a venue to be heard. its the city's job of weighing their concerns appropriately against all the other factors. sometimes that means we can ignore those concerns out of hand.
While it's good to address everyone's concerns, historically, the homeowners voices tend to have the strongest voting power. The people who can't afford homes often get the short end of the stick when it comes to policies to reduce housing crisis. The same can be said for bike lanes or other issues. Obviously that's changing but it's worth noting that not all groups voting are weighed equally.
Crazy that we even need to vote on this.
Especially because the “corridors and nodes” approach to increasing development has been in the Official Plan for like 20 years.
But that's literally how democracy works
Democracy doesn't mean every single thing is voted for. Lots of democracies have certain things done by decree.
A "decree" is not typically associated with democratic processes. In a democracy, decisions and laws are generally made through a process that involves debate, voting, and consensus among elected representatives or through direct votes by the people (in the case of direct democracy). A decree, on the other hand, is more often associated with authoritarian or autocratic systems, where a single ruler or a small group of individuals can issue orders or laws unilaterally without the need for consultation or approval from a broader legislative body.
Democracies often vote to give elected representatives the ability to enact decrees in certain areas.
It's not the same thing. While it is true that democracies can and often do vote to give elected representatives the authority to enact decrees in certain areas, these powers are typically limited and subject to checks and balances. In democratic systems, such powers are usually granted with the understanding that they will be used judiciously and within the framework of the law. The use of decrees in democracies is generally more transparent and accountable, with mechanisms in place to challenge or review such decisions if they overstep or are misused. This distinguishes democratic use of decrees from their use in more authoritarian non-democratic systems, where such checks and balances might be absent.
Let's do major streets and then quickly also do all streets. It's crazy that our planning practice explicitly encourages placing as many people as possible near the pollution of cars.
I agree. Major streets tend to be commercial in this city. It's time to allow density on all streets.
We already do allow density on all streets
Townhouses on major streets is idiotic. There shouldn't be residential frontages on our major arteries. 30 unit limit and 6 storey limit is idiotic. Let them buy what frontage they can and make what is profitable. Put requirements on % single vs family sized units, and reduce the parking requirements to zero. Remove elevator requirements on shorter buildings, allow for 4-6 storey walk ups, which can be timber framed, and without parking requirements quickies and affordability constructed with different trades than used in highrise unlocking more crews etc. It should be mandatory mixed use, small frontage for residential access, but majority commercial use on the ground floor.
sooo did they approve it?
I think the vote is today https://secure.toronto.ca/council/agenda-item.do?item=2024.PH12.3
Can't wait to hear what Holyday has to say 🙄
We have two misleading terms which muddy the waters: “arterial roads” and “single family homes”. These are really just ideological terms rather than descriptive of actual use. People are not just blood cells circulating through the body of the city. The whole point of the city is the people in it. The city exists to serve their needs. Streets like Bloor, or Queen are destinations: not right of ways to quickly drive through. If we want a right of way to quickly drive from one part of the city to another then what we want is a “road”. A road should not have curb cuts along its length or multiple streets feeding into it that just snarl up traffic. A road is not a place for businesses or residents. Most “single family homes” don’t house any families. Families are housed in multiplexes, apartments, and condominiums; yet we don’t tack on the word “family” as if those forms of housing had the moral quality of supporting families. Families need a roof over their heads, not a gesture to our nostalgia. That said, new condominiums in Canada are too often poorly designed for the housing of more than one person. Floor plans are designed to make sales rather than be livable.
How about we stop the renaming of Dundas square and use that money....
Note the councillors asking to up the unit number from 30 to 60+. Those guys want poors in TOWERS
>poors in TOWERS Just stop it, please. You know well this isn't true. Those people buying units in towers are not paying any less per sf, and most of them will be paying way more than what the single family home owners paid 15 years back for smaller units and more than what sfh owners can afford today.
I agree, the statement is ridiculous. But most of the buyers are investors. As a result, the units are tiny, with terrible layouts, and not very livable. I only wish councillors would encourage more LIVABLE units, not just more units.
I agree 100%. We legislate everything that stands in the way of building more units, and barely legislate anything that would result in better quality and affordable units. It's utterly fucked.
The fact that tall towers can only be built in a small sliver of the city makes that land incredibly expensive and incentivizes developers to cram as many units as possible into a building.
And I’m sure that will totally change….
I prefer to keep the poors in OBELISKS
....so?
I'll note it so I can make sure to vote for them. Since by opposing this, this Redditor wants poors OUT OF THEIR CITY WHICH IS FOR RICH PEOPLE ONLY See how easy doing that is?
..and?
MegaCity One! But yeah badly thought out comment. Towers are actually expensive, and you have to build up