Wonderful Graphic, that's a lot of red and the figure ground is pretty sparse.

They are not expensive for the tax base; they subsidize the suburbs. If we taxed differently and aligned taxes more closely with the cost of providing services, would people still favour the suburbs? Or do they favour getting a good deal?

Now, to quickly figure out which can easily accommodate modular housing construction and staging.

Minus the zoning that was required to achieve the goal efficiently with the exception of St. Claire.

100% there is capacity. But what I think is also more interesting, and worth exploring, is whether property taxes cover the ongoing operations and maintenance, and if not, there is an argument to add density for fiscal reasons.

*More* exercise, in fact.

What I find a bit misleading about the map is that it doesn’t show the current population density. Is the area already supportive of transit and jobs? Maybe the focus should be on places with good transit and amenities that aren’t yet hitting that threshold.

Yes, a thousand times over. You should have one portal connected to your address to access all city services, and it would be great if you could also use it to apply for a building permit and list your current building permissions and the process to apply without having to go to city hall.

Sad indeed, wondering if it's planned, paid, or both. Also, the reason I deleted my Facebook account.

Charge them for the true cost to service not by estimated value but by frontage and density and see if they change their minds.

💯 Let's start with the map being 30 years old and failing to be updated every 5 years as mandated by the planning act.

Stormwater management needs to be planned by district and density. Site by site is clearly not working. I contributed to a white paper for CIP on precisely this topic. Downsview is developing a district SWM plan, led by Urban Strategies in collaboration with ARUP.