Toronto Escorts

Now you understand why Premier Mike Harris killed the Eglinton crosstown

oldjones

CanBarelyRe Member
Aug 18, 2001
24,495
11
38
I am lost on your percentages there OJ. I was talking about parking spaces and condo units. I do not believe that any company would build a condo and not have enough parking for at least 75% or more of the units. I cannot imagine a condo being built with no parking spots. I also cannot believe that a condo would be built that would have significantly more units than parking spots as our friend basketcase said.

Per Dougie and the TTC you guys/gals need to relax and not take it so seriously. Dougie is just throwing his weight around and fucking with Tory and his old pals on council. I wish he would stop the grandstanding as he certainly has a burr under his saddle when it comes to Toronto council. I also agree with you all that Dougie is still out to get council over how they treated his brother. Dougie can do as he pleases, but that type of behavior will only bite him in the ass.

Annie also raises some good points on the sudden desire to take over the TTC. Maybe Dougie wants to build a subway (or an underground monorail) to Ontario Place to service the casino and giant ferris wheel.

Per your question OJ I would have no idea what percentage of homes were built with the assumption that the owners would travel by transit instead of car. Check with a real estate agency or builder to see if they can answer your question.
Unfortunately all that sensible reasoning above seemed to fall apart when you defined your version of 'significant' by challenging basket to name a condo with 75% more units than spots. Was that some sort of typo then?

As for Dougie, what he has proposed is to take over subways, so the damn things would get built fast and efficiently, not the entire TTC, which he has explicitly stated would still operate transit in Toronto. He's left it a tad murky whether that would include operating his subways old or new, and there's a suggestion the province might 'buy' the old ones from the TTC/City — a bit of financial fiction like Toronto Hydro buying our lamp-posts and streetlights — to give it some cash to continue Tory's pretence we need not raise taxes. Yet.

Since you and basket were arguing builder/buyer intentions and prices downtown, and their relation to the importance of transit, and since I'd just finished a similar exchange about the 'burbs, I raised suburban construction percentages, with and without parking. Clearly the suburban-development assumption is almost 100% universal: The people who buy here will be travelling by private car, not public transit, spread out the house, add garages, don't add sidewalks. Unlike those buying new condos or older semis in the densely built downtown: got the sidewalks, garages only underground, and as few as we can get away with, units as tight together as we can. Which is why it remains an unmet challenge to provide transit for the 'burbs at any reasonable cost. 'Cause the people who chose to live there chose to do without, just like the people choosing downtown chose not to 'need' cars.

Watch Dougie build commuter rail out in Vaughan, Peel, York and such — with minimal tunnelling only to justify the name subway — to funnel even more riders onto the TTC's over-stressed system. If he lasts long enough to build any 'subways' at all. A century and a quarter and still counting for the DRL.
 

basketcase

Well-known member
Dec 29, 2005
59,732
6,288
113
Thanks for the response basketcase. Having significantly more units than parking spots would mean that parking spots would be around what 10% - 25% compared to units? Significant would be much more units than parking spots. ....
Sorry but a typical building reducing the number of cars by 30-50% sure seems significant to me.
 
Ashley Madison
Toronto Escorts