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.
My guess is it has some thing to do when the UK when they ran and own Canada they pushed for higher density and draw up the green belt areas basing it on the UK cities this would be lower density compared to the UK but higher density if comparing it to the US.
Where as the US gone more crazy with sprawl by both parties where even liberals are more for houses in the US.
FAST forward to day and now you got the Green Party lobbying both parties the left and right.
Do you have any solid evidence of this? The places to grow act was implemented in the early 2000's well after the Canada act of 1982
The UK hasn't "run and owned" Canada since 1867 though you could argue 1931 if you absolutely must. At any rate, the UK would have nothing to do with "matters of a local or private nature" (Constitution s. 92(16)), such as a greenbelt. That would be too-small potatoes for Westminster; it wouldn't care what the province of Ontario says about a greenbelt. That's why we had Confederation in 1867; so Westminster didn't have to look after the small stuff here, while we, being on the ground and more familiar with the matter at hand, could.
The 1982 Constitution does not figure into the question.
Sprawling into the greenbelt isn't necessarily going to create more livable communities. The question is, within the existing footprint can we accommodate future housing demand in the existing built up areas and pair that with better mass transit options.
This is an interesting read on the arability of the land in southern ontario
Only 5 percent of Canada is considered Prime Agricultural land and 50 percent of Southern Ontario is Prime with 20 percent regarded as Class 1 Prime. In all of Canada only .5 percent is class one and 20 percent of that is in Southern Ontario.
I think we should be doing it all. Less regulations, up zoning everywhere, eliminate development fees and at the same time fund millions of federal, CMHC constructed social housing units across the country, add federal subsidies for purpose built rental construction, etc. Home values need to go down. Way way way down to be affordable and the only way we get there is all hands on deck. I personally think the greenbelt will need to be part of the equation but if we can do it while keeping the greenbelt as is I wouldn’t be against it, I’m just very skeptical the kind of growth projections for the GTA can be accommodated without it.
I think the point I was trying to make might have been easy to misunderstand. I was saying why does Toronto have the world’s largest green belt while these cities don’t have a greenbelt. Home prices are much cheaper in both cities than Montreal, though still too expensive due to the country wide housing shortage. Why is Toronto so special that it needs this extreme level of protection? Seems overly restrictive to me, and this is coming from myself who is usually a liberal
Toronto's greenbelt has already been developed on and looking at a map, its pristine nature has already been spoiled. Take Newmarket and Aurora for instance. They look uncomfortably out of place, flanked by farmland and greenery because they are among the first intrusions into the Greenbelt. My uncle used to live in Aurora. Years ago, he gifted me an outdated streetmap and gazetteer dating back to 1992. Much later, I tried to look up his street using that old map but the location corresponded to woods. Now let's say the Province thinks the Greenbelt initiative is bad and scrap it entirely. Development goes unimpeded, the remaining woods and farmland get wiped out and turned into more Newmarkets, and in short time, the development reaches the shores of Lake Simcoe! Do you really want that? Imagine how bad the traffic coming into Toronto on Highway 400 and Highway 404 would be if that were to happen. The traffic is already pretty bad right now as it is. Invest in public transit? How are you so sure that the Province is going to increase transit on the GO system, which btw has been terrible for some time on some lines? I don't think developing out the Greenbelt is going to save homeowners much money, perhaps a 10-20% discount off of GTA's already overinflated home prices, but that still does not spell affordability. I think the GTA is shooting itself on the foot if it were to think that getting rid of the Greenbelt is a solution to the housing crisis.
Toronto's greenbelt has already been developed on and looking at a map, its pristine nature has already been spoiled. Take Newmarket and Aurora for instance. They look uncomfortably out of place, flanked by farmland and greenery because they are among the first intrusions into the Greenbelt. My uncle used to live in Aurora. Years ago, he gifted me an outdated streetmap and gazetteer dating back to 1992. Much later, I tried to look up his street using that old map but the location corresponded to woods. Now let's say the Province thinks the Greenbelt initiative is bad and scrap it entirely. Development goes unimpeded, the remaining woods and farmland get wiped out and turned into more Newmarkets, and in short time, the development reaches the shores of Lake Simcoe! Do you really want that? Imagine how bad the traffic coming into Toronto on Highway 400 and Highway 404 would be if that were to happen. The traffic is already pretty bad right now as it is. Invest in public transit? How are you so sure that the Province is going to increase transit on the GO system, which btw has been terrible for some time on some lines? I don't think developing out the Greenbelt is going to save homeowners much money, perhaps a 10-20% discount off of GTA's already overinflated home prices, but that still does not spell affordability. I think the GTA is shooting itself on the foot if it were to think that getting rid of the Greenbelt is a solution to the housing crisis.
I feel like your comment is implying Toronto is “already full”. The population is going to grow to 10 million within 10-15 years based on the projections I’ve seen. If we don’t build more supply, where are these people going to go? I agree there should be more density in existing areas but that’s not going to happen overnight. I think we can preserve wetlands and land that is actually currently being used for agriculture, and I’m all for it. All the 30 acre estates where rich business owners build custom homes on large lots in Stouffville and Caledon are not part of that category for me. Let’s build more density there too.
Toronto's greenbelt has already been developed on and looking at a map, its pristine nature has already been spoiled. Take Newmarket and Aurora for instance. They look uncomfortably out of place, flanked by farmland and greenery because they are among the first intrusions into the Greenbelt. My uncle used to live in Aurora. Years ago, he gifted me an outdated streetmap and gazetteer dating back to 1992. Much later, I tried to look up his street using that old map but the location corresponded to woods. Now let's say the Province thinks the Greenbelt initiative is bad and scrap it entirely. Development goes unimpeded, the remaining woods and farmland get wiped out and turned into more Newmarkets, and in short time, the development reaches the shores of Lake Simcoe! Do you really want that? Imagine how bad the traffic coming into Toronto on Highway 400 and Highway 404 would be if that were to happen. The traffic is already pretty bad right now as it is. Invest in public transit? How are you so sure that the Province is going to increase transit on the GO system, which btw has been terrible for some time on some lines? I don't think developing out the Greenbelt is going to save homeowners much money, perhaps a 10-20% discount off of GTA's already overinflated home prices, but that still does not spell affordability. I think the GTA is shooting itself on the foot if it were to think that getting rid of the Greenbelt is a solution to the housing crisis.
Well there is still a lot of undeveloped land in the greenbelt and in southern ontario writ large. I'm of the view with you however, is that this is really the last place to be developed. I think we can take care of all the growth needs within existing footprints. We can't undo development of green areas we develop.
Well there is still a lot of undeveloped land in the greenbelt and in southern ontario writ large. I'm of the view with you however, is that this is really the last place to be developed. I think we can take care of all the growth needs within existing footprints. We can't undo development of green areas we develop.
That’s fair enough. I don’t know what kind of court rulings or legislation would be needed to make this happen, but I support it. Will it happen is the question. If you buy a piece of land and try and build a 2 storey walk up with 6 apartments in it you’ll be fighting the city and NIMBYs tooth and nail to get it done. Then they’ll slap development fees onto you that could tack on an extra $250k per unit. If you look at older suburban areas from the 1920s-1940s they’re much more dense, but building the same type of housing now would be next to impossible with all the red tape. The problem is no one wants new housing built in their own neighbourhoods and they have the power to stop it at the municipal level, and therein lies the problem that leads to the Greenbelt being easier to get up zoned than an existing residential neighbourhood
That’s fair enough. I don’t know what kind of court rulings or legislation would be needed to make this happen, but I support it. Will it happen is the question. If you buy a piece of land and try and build a 2 storey walk up with 6 apartments in it you’ll be fighting the city and NIMBYs tooth and nail to get it done. Then they’ll slap development fees onto you that could tack on an extra $250k per unit. If you look at older suburban areas from the 1920s-1940s they’re much more dense, but building the same type of housing now would be next to impossible with all the red tape. The problem is no one wants new housing built in their own neighbourhoods and they have the power to stop it at the municipal level, and therein lies the problem that leads to the Greenbelt being easier to get up zoned than an existing residential neighbourhood
Yeah I mean there is going to be a whole rethink on how and where we develop. Even Ford isn't really toying with the idea of a dramatic drive to develop the greenbelt - it is truly a small area he has considered. I'm with you though, the ways we've been doing things aren't the ways we need to moving forward. It means we won't be able to preserve every Nimby's sentiment. Politicians at all levels need to be very clear that if we want more affordable housing - its going to have to mean more densification.
The UK hasn't "run and owned" Canada since 1867 though you could argue 1931 if you absolutely must. At any rate, the UK would have nothing to do with "matters of a local or private nature" (Constitution s. 92(16)), such as a greenbelt. That would be too-small potatoes for Westminster; it wouldn't care what the province of Ontario says about a greenbelt. That's why we had Confederation in 1867; so Westminster didn't have to look after the small stuff here, while we, being on the ground and more familiar with the matter at hand, could.
The 1982 Constitution does not figure into the question.
He said places to grow act was implemented in the early 2000s. So does that mean the green belt where drawn up at that time?
But clearly 80s suburbs and very much so the 90s became more dense. Not to say there where place in Toronto well after ww2 car ownership took of with higher density. So even limiting sprawl was done way before in Toronto. The East York, York and Don mills and Jane and Finch took higher density to limit sprawl back than was build way before late 80s.
So not like they where all saying GTA oh oh oh no no we got sprawl problem in 90s that go for higher density. Cleary in areas in the GTA was going for higher density even in the 70s and 80s may be even before at least in some areas.
Australia is having same problem has Canada with out of control sky high housing cost. There sprawl seems bit limited there to and not quite like the US that is really big on sprawl. May be the oil industry and car makers just lobby the hell to say liberal party and Conservative Party in the US like crazy. Not even Doug Ford would improve of Houston, Dallas or be really shocked at Tulsa sprawl despite being suburb guy than city guy and not buying into Green Party.
But it is odd Canada has more common with Australia political atmosphere than the US well unless the UK had say in policies in both countries or the city planners learning from UK city planning schools and US city planners breaking away having their own rules.
When you look at Sydney and Melbourne it is other Toronto housing mess with housing very costly. Australia does not really have other cities to choose from well at least with really fast growing at fast rate and in very much so in the desert area not really growth unlike say the US having growth in the desert.
Other than the US rust belt areas and midwest the south and west coast all those cities are growing at fast rate. And modest growth in the midwest now it seems.
I don’t see Australia making new cities or expanding the smaller communities or sprawling out much now they are in same problem as Canada.
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.
