Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Hmm in principle I don't think that it is a good thing to have an exclusive private development on what should be open land. I see it as detracting from the appeal of the Toronto Islands. So what if this development is walkable or car-free? You and I don't live there? We can't enjoy it as a public space. Only the property owners and their circle of friends and family have it. It's a private take over of what should be one of the city's premier parks. This is how I feel about the Lake Point Tower in Chicago as well.
For one it's not a private development as the city owns the land and leases the homes out for 99 years.
the village is on a small part of the islands, Many people would have a hard time finding it if they didn't know where it was. For those that know about them it's a cool place to visit. The Toronto are huge and there are a ton of stuff to do on them such as 3 beaches, amusement parks, zoos, several restaurants, dragon boat races, various other water activities, mazes, historical sites, etc.... Babe Ruth first professional home run happen on the islands when it also had hotels and a stadium. Most people spent the entire day on the islands.
No one in Toronto would trade the Toronto islands for Central or Millennium Park is the point of this discussion.
Last edited by Trojan1982; 01-02-2024 at 05:11 PM..
For one it's not a private development as the city owns the land and leases the homes out for 99 years.
the village is on a small part of the islands, Many people would have a hard time finding it if they didn't know where it was. For those that know about them it's a cool place to visit. The Toronto are huge and there are a ton of stuff to do on them such as 3 beaches, amusement parks, zoos, several restaurants, dragon boat races, various other water activities, mazes, historical sites, etc.... Babe Ruth first professional home run happen on the islands when it also had hotels and a stadium. Most people spent the entire day on the islands.
No one in Toronto would trade the Toronto islands for Central or Millennium Park is the point of this discussion.
So what you have a few beaches....the Chicago Lakefront has plenty of those...and one of the best art museums in the world, as well as museum campus, the museum of science and industry, the Obama center (under construction), a free zoo, ton of boat harbors.... it's 18 miles in length.
Last edited by sf_arkitect; 01-02-2024 at 06:01 PM..
For one it's not a private development as the city owns the land and leases the homes out for 99 years.
the village is on a small part of the islands, Many people would have a hard time finding it if they didn't know where it was. For those that know about them it's a cool place to visit. The Toronto are huge and there are a ton of stuff to do on them such as 3 beaches, amusement parks, zoos, several restaurants, dragon boat races, various other water activities, mazes, historical sites, etc.... Babe Ruth first professional home run happen on the islands when it also had hotels and a stadium. Most people spent the entire day on the islands.
No one in Toronto would trade the Toronto islands for Central or Millennium Park is the point of this discussion.
The Chicago Lakefront parks are far more accessible and less of a “trip”. Rolls aren’t going to pop over for a bit like they would their Chicago lakefront parks.
Toronto however blows Chicago away with its ravines. It actually has some interesting topography away from the lake
Alot. Way more than Chicago. There's plethora articles out there of Toronto's bonkers construction boom. There were probably more construction permits permitted in a single month in Toronto than Chicago had all year. There's 100+ cranes all over the city. Their population is skyrocketing. Toronto is a great lakes city that is experiencing sunbelt/Texas level growth. Meanwhile Chicago's population has been stagnant for decades
The Chicago Lakefront parks are far more accessible and less of a “trip”. Rolls aren’t going to pop over for a bit like they would their Chicago lakefront parks.
Toronto however blows Chicago away with its ravines. It actually has some interesting topography away from the lake
Nearly all of Toronto's 42 km waterfront is lined with parks which are also accessible and have beaches and other attractions but we also have the Toronto islands.
Adjusting for social transfer (Eg: healthcare, pensions etc) Americans have an extra $20k a year to spend than Canadians, Brits and French, and 10k above and beyond the Germans.
You’re the crazy one of you think giving Canadians $20k /year wouldn’t cause a lot of them to go “cool I’m buying a car”
People hate traffic but the “taking the bus to the movies on Sunday” or “in to town for the game Thursday night” is the kind of trip wealthy people tend not to take on transit because traffic isn’t a concern.
In fact it’s a pretty well established explanation LA had the best recovery of major systems cayse they had the least choice riders to begin with.
The middle class in Toronto look at their income, cost of a car, cost of their apartment and, Traffic, transit options and say “well I’m better off on TTC.
And compared to Chicago all 5 factors favor Transit more strongly but TTC is in charge of 1. And well ODOT one other
You do know that A LOT of those who commute via transit own cars, right? Owning a car doesn't mean one is going to want to drive it everywhere. Heck, even here in highwaytopia Orlando, I commute to and from work via commuter train. Having grown up in a Canadian city, it's just a way of life, much like it is in NYC, Tokyo, London, etc.
Also, There is significantly lower poverty in Canadian cities than in the US.
The average American is not really better off financially than the average Canadian
You do know that A LOT of those who commute via transit own cars, right? Owning a car doesn't mean one is going to want to drive it everywhere. Heck, even here in highwaytopia Orlando, I commute to and from work via commuter train. Having grown up in a Canadian city, it's just a way of life, much like it is in NYC, Tokyo, London, etc.
Also, There is significantly lower poverty in Canadian cities than in the US.
The average American is not really better off financially than the average Canadian
Between 2013-2019 American cities like Chicago and Boston saw decreases in overall ridership but increases in rush hour ridership increased because the cities got wealthier and during non-rush hour (or not going into the city center) driving was a faster.
Commutes are not the only reason people take transit. Going over their moms house for Sunday dinner, going bowling on Saturday, going do dinner Tuesday night etc. when people don’t own cars tend to be transit trips. But are car trips when they do.
Americans have on average an extra $20k in disposable income. If Canadians had that, they’d drive more.
I’m not saying the TTC frankly terrific bus system and high frequency subway service has no impact. It has significant impact. But to pretend high fuel prices and lower incomes don’t drive people to transit is silly.
People literally advocate for higher gas taxes and road user fees because they know it drives people to take transit. (Also the Canadian poverty line is 5,000 lower than the American one so I’d hope it has a lower poverty rate) also pretty much every Canadian city is a metro/city combination. You rarely have a St Louis or Hartford situation where 10% of the metro lives in the city.
Between 2013-2019 American cities like Chicago and Boston saw decreases in overall ridership but increases in rush hour ridership increased because the cities got wealthier and during non-rush hour (or not going into the city center) driving was a faster.
Commutes are not the only reason people take transit. Going over their moms house for Sunday dinner, going bowling on Saturday, going do dinner Tuesday night etc. when people don’t own cars tend to be transit trips. But are car trips when they do.
Americans have on average an extra $20k in disposable income. If Canadians had that, they’d drive more.
Disagree. I lived in Montreal for years. Just like in NYC, people there PREFER to use the metro (and now REM). It's faster, and far more convenient (no parking hassles, fighting traffic, accidents, etc.) The car is used when going out into the suburbs. If living in the suburbs, the car is driven to a Park and Ride lot, and the train is used to get around from there.
And again, the busiest expressway in North America is in Toronto. The whole "average disposable income" and "car ownership" thing doesn't jive.
And please use MEDIAN figures as opposed to mean. I thought everyone knew this by now:
Which is better mean or median?
The median is a better measure of the central tendency of the group as It it is not skewed by exceptionally high or low characteristic values.
The median household disposable incomes for the US and Canada are $7,000 apart, which is much more of an accurate representation of the two countries. They are ranked 2nd and 4th in the world.
No, the average American is not walking around with an extra $20k to spend.
Disagree. I lived in Montreal for years. Just like in NYC, people there PREFER to use the metro (and now REM). It's faster, and far more convenient (no parking hassles, fighting traffic, accidents, etc.) The car is used when going out into the suburbs. If living in the suburbs, the car is driven to a Park and Ride lot, and the train is used to get around from there.
And again, the busiest expressway in North America is in Toronto. The whole "average disposable income" and "car ownership" thing doesn't jive.
And please use MEDIAN figures as opposed to mean. I thought everyone knew this by now:
Which is better mean or median?
The median is a better measure of the central tendency of the group as It it is not skewed by exceptionally high or low characteristic values.
The median household disposable incomes for the US and Canada are $7,000 apart, which is much more of an accurate representation of the two countries. They are ranked 2nd and 4th in the world.
No, the average American is not walking around with an extra $20k to spend.
*Median incomes* are much higher in America. Also $7,000 is still a lot of money. That’s ~$600/mo. That’s significantly higher than my car payment. (Also do you have a link?)
I am not saying the entire gap is driven by the fact Canadians have less money, and driving is more expensive in Canada. but it’s certainly a contributing factor and to deny it is denying a pretty basic fact of human behavior.
The $/sq Ft in Wichita is lower than New York so people buy bigger houses. VMT dropped like 8% last summer due to gas being $5/gallon. That’s cheaper than gas is in Ontario right now. If you had sustained gas prices at ~$5.25-$5.50 (spending ~1,000 extra in gas prices a year) and Americans were $7,000 poorer damn straight people would do the math and take the bus.
Also this is on the margins not in totality. If Canadians had an extra $7-10k you might see TTC ridership drop 10 or 11% not like go to 0.
*Median incomes* are much higher in America. Also $7,000 is still a lot of money. That’s ~$600/mo. That’s significantly higher than my car payment. (Also do you have a link?)
I am not saying the entire gap is driven by the fact Canadians have less money, and driving is more expensive in Canada. but it’s certainly a contributing factor and to deny it is denying a pretty basic fact of human behavior.
The $/sq Ft in Wichita is lower than New York so people buy bigger houses. VMT dropped like 8% last summer due to gas being $5/gallon. That’s cheaper than gas is in Ontario right now. If you had sustained gas prices at ~$5.25-$5.50 (spending ~1,000 extra in gas prices a year) and Americans were $7,000 poorer damn straight people would do the math and take the bus.
Also this is on the margins not in totality. If Canadians had an extra $7-10k you might see TTC ridership drop 10 or 11% not like go to 0.
Comparing incomes between countries gets very tricky, especially when one country has universal healthcare and the other doesn't. Plus taxation plays a huge part. For example in the US gas may generally be cheaper, but property taxes are generally higher than Canada.
That $7,000 USD advantage, could be gone very quickly.
As for driving. Cost is just one factor, and judging from the amount of cars on the road in Canada, not enough to stop people from driving. People here ( talking about Vancouver ) take transit because it is convenient, and usually faster that driving, depending on your destination. When transit is built where busses and trains come every few minutes, it's a no brainer. Many cities have figured this out.
Where cars come in handy ( I have one ) is for picking up large purchases, and going for a drive in the country or a major road trip. My car is used once a week. I take transit or walk.
I get the impression that you think only the poor take transit. Not so here in Vancouver, and probably most of Canada. Like in NYC, or London etc.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
