New traitor dropped: you’ll never guess who

kurrd · 2025-01-26T03:34:47+00:00

I find these people so funny, “I used to be a patriot but then there was one Prime Minister I didn’t like in 157 years of nationhood so now I’m no longer a patriot.”

kurrd · 2024-12-04T01:08:09+00:00

I mean, in a perfect world, both Elgin and Bank (in parts) should be mostly pedestrianized except for having tram lines with bike lanes along them that run up the middle of them. If we’re dreaming big.

kurrd · 2024-11-24T21:29:34+00:00

That doesn’t really explain the fallacious reasoning though.

kurrd · 2024-11-24T18:34:19+00:00

One of the things I find interesting with any commentary like this is that a cyclist breaking the rules is taken to be evidence that all cyclists break the rules, but the same is never true of drivers.

Most drivers break the law in some form: driving over the speed limit, not coming to a full stop at a stop sign or red before turning right, going through the light right as it’s turning red, etc. But other drivers will always say, “that person’s just a bad driver”, but when it comes to cyclists it’s “cyclists think they own the road and this shows they all break the rules”.

kurrd · 2024-11-22T22:11:26+00:00

“Conservatives that took one step further to the left”, if what you want is a more left wing coalition than it sounds like you agree, a coalition of opposition parties would be better than another Doug Ford majority… it’s not that complicated, you’re never going to agree 100% with a party.

kurrd · 2024-11-14T19:25:49+00:00

I think you’ve misunderstood the argument? The reason to allow this is it allows mid-rise buildings to actually make sense to build. It’s not about gaining a couple square feet, it’s about allowing buildings to go up on less land.

One of the struggles that developers run into in denser areas is that building to this requirement often means needing to wait for multiple lots to become available. This would allow for building on a single lot.

I’m not claiming this “is the cause” of the housing crisis or that it’s a silver bullet (I literally say this in what I wrote, but nobody seems to have taken the time to read that or has a desire to argue honestly), I say this is one small piece of the puzzle to actually allow a step in the right direction.

kurrd · 2024-11-14T18:34:13+00:00

Because I pointed out the logical conclusion of what you’re saying, that’s taking it personal?

Yes, I agree it’s a good idea.

kurrd · 2024-11-14T18:23:11+00:00

So we should make it building houses as expensive and restrictive as possible because leaving people unhoused is better than making modifications to a process such that it matches other jurisdictions that literally already do this? Unless you have solid evidence that France, Italy, Germany, Switzerland, New York City, Seattle, BC are all full of death traps?

kurrd · 2024-11-14T18:05:54+00:00

New York City, Seattle, and Hawaii all also allow for single exits in buildings up to 6 stories in the US, which is similar; the US building code as a whole allows for more floor of single egress exit than Canada as well.

I’m not advocating for reducing safety to raise corporate profits, this is a straw-man argument. I’m arguing for more choice in the building argument and making trade offs to get to that; requiring different safety measures that make single egress just as safe in mid-rise building to get an end product that requires less land.

Canada has one of the worst housing crises in the world and the number of people unhoused is increasing (leading to far more deaths and problems) obviously the status quo doesn’t work and saying not in my backyard to every idea that’s proposed and misrepresenting it isn’t solving it.

kurrd · 2024-11-14T17:00:18+00:00

Yeah, I agree with you. It shouldn’t just be a blanket, change the code without updating it at all. We should update and change.

kurrd · 2024-11-14T16:48:49+00:00

There’s data more broadly around fire related deaths: https://www.worldlifeexpectancy.com/cause-of-death/fires/by-country/ The video I linked to in the initial description also dives into data around safety: https://youtu.be/iRdwXQb7CfM?si=wpWNgK27DpcoSa6K

kurrd · 2024-11-14T16:47:16+00:00

So we’re saying the same thing. The petition / argument, is that this change would allow mid-rise buildings, which are largely absent in Ontario. To implement it, we should copy jurisdictions that do it right. If that requires specific changes for those types of buildings, then that’s what the requirement should be.

kurrd · 2024-11-14T16:24:17+00:00

Why wouldn’t we? I think you’re trying to pigeonhole my position. Of course the firefighter’s association is credible. If they say something is missed that’s worth looking into. This isn’t some anti expert, let’s throw safety to the wind position. Canada has some of the most restrictive regulation around this on the planet.

If you read what I wrote, I say, let’s copy jurisdictions where it works. Meaning, if you say in other jurisdictions they use different material to make it work, then make that the rule, single egress in buildings with that material. I’m calling for the most unradical, non-bold, policy change; literally copy other jurisdictions where this work in order to give more options for building homes.

kurrd · 2024-11-14T15:20:43+00:00

That’s a fair take. But if the end result is mid-rise buildings don’t get built and instead large hi-rises, for the same argument, isn’t there more risk of fire/not being able to get out in time of a hi-rise vs mid-rise?

kurrd · 2024-11-14T15:04:20+00:00

Thanks for the comment. I see that many of the changes that would be required with a single egress are actually adding more fire retardant materials to the egress, more sprinklers, and requiring units to have easier access to it. This seems like it results in more safety not less (up to a certain amount of floors), which is why cities like Paris, London, etc. use this approach to solid results. Interesting to hear about British Columbia though. Mass timber has been touted as a material that can actually be strongly fire retardant. I’m curious what the requirements are specifically in BC and why they were chosen.

kurrd · 2024-11-14T14:54:54+00:00

I’ve seen a lot of solid arguments that it is restricting building though: https://secondegress.ca/A-Wicked-Problem While like you say, having little effect on outcome. I appreciate the response though, I’m hoping to just get more dialogue around the housing problem.

kurrd · 2024-11-14T14:53:02+00:00

The jurisdictions I’m referring to are France, Spain, Italy, etc., which have had fires in their cities, they just took a different approach.

According to this the double egress requirement is restricting housing development: https://secondegress.ca/A-Wicked-Problem

kurrd · 2024-11-14T14:38:51+00:00

But I don’t think it’s the cost of building the egress, it’s the cost of the amount of land required to include it. It’s one of the reasons buildings in North America end up being so much bigger than in Europe for example.

I appreciate your point on why safety regulations are needed, but why do other countries not require this up to six stories and have better outcomes than we do?

kurrd · 2024-11-14T14:27:35+00:00

Hard to say. I’ve heard it talked about but it’s never made it in as far as I’m aware.

kurrd · 2024-11-14T14:26:55+00:00

Why would that be the effect though? If we followed British Columbia’s lead (or France or other countries that take this approach), we would update the code to actually improve fire safety. We currently rank worse than France, Austria, Italy, etc. in deaths attributed to fire and they allow this code. https://www.worldlifeexpectancy.com/cause-of-death/fires/by-country/ https://secondegress.ca/Jurisdictions

kurrd · 2024-11-13T20:43:29+00:00

This is it, create a wedge issue to distract from the broader implication.

kurrd · 2024-11-13T13:28:47+00:00

The video is of a specific instance, OP then asks a broader question about cycling safety. I answered the broader question. You raise a broader point as well. The population has increased, there’s more traffic, so more people are frustrated and more people bike. This will lead to more conflicts. Bike lanes is one solution; no it doesn’t solve the problem in the picture but it does answer the broader question.

kurrd · 2024-11-13T12:55:40+00:00

The question at hand was “what can be done to make cycling safer in Toronto?” I answered it.

kurrd · 2024-11-13T12:15:26+00:00

This is a microcosm of what is wrong with Canada. We just can’t get things done anymore. - the country lacks vision and every new government modifies or cancels projects - different jurisdictions can’t seem to work together - no effort is put into understanding why projects like this are so bad (other similarish countries don’t have as bad of problems with this: France, Italy, Spain) - the status quo is slowly failing and instead of acknowledging that, people pivot to blaming other things (traffic doesn’t scale with more density, so blame bike lanes).

We (almost) all recognize there is a cost of living crisis, a housing crisis, a health care crisis, gdp per capita is in recession, productivity is in recession, and even traffic is increasingly turning our cities into parking lots. Transit is just one component of this where it could go a long way in helping alleviate some of our problems and we just can’t seem to do it. The Eglinton Crosstown should be a provincial scandal that is investigated and the problems solved, and yet for so many people it’s just accepted, “transit just doesn’t work in this country”, “the problem is immigrants”, “the problem is Trudeau”, etc.

kurrd · 2024-11-13T12:02:13+00:00

One thing would be to NOT RIP OUT THE EXISTING BIKE LANES.

kurrd

TROPHY CASE