Canada's 10 Tallest U/C

[WhipperSnapper]

I try to avoid associating sprawl with densities particularly in the context of Canadian cities. The Lake Shore GO is far removed from the northern fringes where stacked townhomes and high rise development will soon eclipse inventory in the rest of the city. Electrification is unlikely to address costs. GO is too expensive for frequent recreational usage. TOD development principals is to build as much residential density on every square inch of land within range of a station. I find it unlikely that the quality of life will be so much better than the high density auto centric sprawl currently developing on the northern fringes or the low density auto centric sprawl developed in the 1990s and early 2000s.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper

I try to avoid associating sprawl with densities particularly in the context of Canadian cities. The Lake Shore GO is far removed from the northern fringes where stacked townhomes and high rise development will soon eclipse inventory in the rest of the city. Electrification is unlikely to address costs. GO is too expensive for frequent recreational usage. TOD development principals is to build as much residential density on every square inch of land within range of a station. I find it unlikely that the quality of life will be so much better than the high density auto centric sprawl currently developing on the northern fringes or the low density auto centric sprawl developed in the 1990s and early 2000s.

Hopefully once electrification is in place they will also lower fares and implement some level of fare integration since the operating costs will be lower for the agency. I also think even expensive transit is often cheaper than owning and operating cars. A household with multiple cars that can transition to having fewer can save a huge amount of money.

But yes you're absolutely right that it won't have much affect near the lines that aren't electrified which doesn't seem to be planned for Milton.

[Maldive]

Pinnacle One Yonge | 312.5m | 95s | Pinnacle | Hariri Pontarini l u/c


Red Mars

Red Mars

Red Mars


160 Front West | 239.87m | 46s | Cadillac Fairview | AS + GG l u/c


mburrrrr

coreybrendan

Red Mars

Test lighting?

skycandy

skycandy


Sugar Wharf Condominiums (Phase 1) | 231m | 70s | Menkes | a—A l u/c

Some very nice snaps from a UT forum member. Below, the 70* storey tower hiding the 65 storey (topped out) sibling unseen behind it. This one has 4 more residential floors plus 3 mech levels to go.


mburrrrr


mburrrrr

mburrrrr

Red Mars

The One | 338.3m | 94s | Mizrahi Developments | Foster + Partners l u/c

First massive ties installed after the new crane sections were added. Mizrahi is now being sued by his (crooked) financial partner so there may be more rough seas ahead… after finally ramping up to a fast construction cycle (good grief).

Benito

Earlier in the day in the rain, forms for walls and super-columns going up.


Benito

thaivic

[WhipperSnapper]

The One has pulled ahead of One Yonge

[TorontoDrew]

Originally Posted by Snow_Wolf

Man, this thread makes me jealous of Toronto. Not jealous of it's insane urban sprawl, though.

This Satscan graph shows that Toronto's downtown growth is about 3 times greater then it's sprawl growth, where as surprisingly in Vancouver it looks to be about 50/50 downtown and sprawl or regional grwoth atm.

[WhipperSnapper]

It's not surprising. Just compare the number of towers under construction in the respective downtown areas to the rest of the metro.

This graph is too easy to poke holes in that I won't even try

[dleung]

What is downtown? I'm doubt 50% of Vancouver's growth is downtown... maybe 5%. City proper maybe. Downtown is full.

[WhipperSnapper]

Vancouver's growth is tiny. It wouldn't take a lot of people to have a huge growth rate.

[dleung]

oops, totally misread the graph. Got thrown off by Drew's wording "50/50" which suggests "proportion of growth" when in fact it's "equal growth rate".

[Snow_Wolf]

Originally Posted by TorontoDrew

This Satscan graph shows that Toronto's downtown growth is about 3 times greater then it's sprawl growth, where as surprisingly in Vancouver it looks to be about 50/50 downtown and sprawl or regional grwoth atm.

Calling the rest of Vancouver growth 'sprawl' though isn't really accurate, there's constant densification of suburban communities like Burnaby and Richmond. When I talk about Toronto's urban sprawl I'm talking less about the city proper and more of places like Brampton and Milton. If you look at metro Vancouver on google earth there aren't really any large suburban communities being constructed besides Burke Mountain and South Surrey. Even then, those areas look tiny compared to the sprawl around Toronto.

Edit: What I think would be more useful is a graph showing the total area of new housing being built on forest or farmland.

[Greetingsfromcanada]

Originally Posted by Snow_Wolf

Calling the rest of Vancouver growth 'sprawl' though isn't really accurate, there's constant densification of suburban communities like Burnaby and Richmond. When I talk about Toronto's urban sprawl I'm talking less about the city proper and more of places like Brampton and Milton. If you look at metro Vancouver on google earth there aren't really any large suburban communities being constructed besides Burke Mountain and South Surrey. Even then, those areas look tiny compared to the sprawl around Toronto.

Edit: What I think would be more useful is a graph showing the total area of new housing being built on forest or farmland.

This doesn't even capture the real scale of the difference, since places like Burnaby have secondary "cores" like Brentwood and Lougheed that have added thousands of condos that go uncounted in this. I wouldn't be surprised if Surrey or Richmond has the 4th best urban centre in the country by like 2035, I don't see Mississauga going anywhere good from a city planning perspective

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally Posted by Snow_Wolf

Calling the rest of Vancouver growth 'sprawl' though isn't really accurate, there's constant densification of suburban communities like Burnaby and Richmond. When I talk about Toronto's urban sprawl I'm talking less about the city proper and more of places like Brampton and Milton. If you look at metro Vancouver on google earth there aren't really any large suburban communities being constructed besides Burke Mountain and South Surrey. Even then, those areas look tiny compared to the sprawl around Toronto.

Edit: What I think would be more useful is a graph showing the total area of new housing being built on forest or farmland.

The Greater Toronto Area is more than twice the population of Metro Vancouver. Of course its sprawl and subdivision development will be larger in scope. As I've been told, Greater Vancouver is at its maximum limits to sprawl like Mississauga so that also is a contributing factor to slower growth and greater intensification in the McMansion burbs.

[Harley613]

It's different than Mississauga. Mississauga is literally physically out of space to grow. Metro Vancouver has a strict urban boundary that encourages intensification on a schedule.


http://www.metrovancouver.org/metro2040/...nt/urban-containment/Pages/default.aspx#

[WhipperSnapper]

Ah. thanks.

That's what I've interpreted on the forum that Greater Vancouver has reached its geographical limits.

[905er]

the white balconies on the Sugar Warf buildings... are they suppose to make a distinguishable design or just blotchy?.. is it suppose to be like one of those magic eye posters ...where you have to squint to see the picture? I don't get it

[Maldive]

Originally Posted by 905er

the white balconies on the Sugar Warf buildings... are they suppose to make a distinguishable design or just blotchy?.. is it suppose to be like one of those magic eye posters ...where you have to squint to see the picture? I don't get it

They are a satirical take on the over-abundance of useless bar charts... like those above.

[Biff]

Atari 2600 Asteroids.

[GeneralLea]

Originally Posted by Harley613

It's different than Mississauga. Mississauga is literally physically out of space to grow. Metro Vancouver has a strict urban boundary that encourages intensification on a schedule.


http://www.metrovancouver.org/metro2040/...nt/urban-containment/Pages/default.aspx#

The only real places left to develop are the countless fields along Hurontario/ around the north side of the city, and the 9th Line lands, which are now to be redevloped soon.

https://www.mississauga.ca/projects-and-strategies/city-projects/shaping-ninth-line/

[TorontoDrew]

Originally Posted by GeneralLeeTPHLS

The only real places left to develop are the countless fields along Hurontario/ around the north side of the city, and the 9th Line lands, which are now to be redevloped soon.

https://www.mississauga.ca/projects-and-strategies/city-projects/shaping-ninth-line/

Under this Ford Government none of our farmland or green space is safe. He's even building a hwy that's not even needed which will encourage more suburban development. Mississauga has plenty more land to build single family dwellings on other then what you mentioned. Unfortunately nothing is safe atm.

[GeneralLea]

I'm not sure where then, other than floodplains and greenspaces. He has removed much of the powers with regards to conservation authorities, but I don't see something like Riverwood being razed for high density condos even though its adjacent to the Milton GO line.

Perhaps anything adjacent to the highways? The only "farmland" (other than again, the numerous fields still dotting the city in the northern half) left in Mississauga is the one owned by the PDSB and is going to be partly redevloped in the coming years.