Worth adding some private and public planning docs to this discussion.

I may dig up some more later.

This one looks at both Thorncliffe and Flemingdon, it's from 2016:


The north end of the Flemingdon Area was identified as Parkland Priority Acquisition area by the City:

1664476696070.png


The orange is the priority area, the large D in the centre north of this image is Don Mills Road, Eglinton is running E-W across the middle of the area.
 
Worth adding some private and public planning docs to this discussion.

I may dig up some more later.

This one looks at both Thorncliffe and Flemingdon, it's from 2016:


The north end of the Flemingdon Area was identified as Parkland Priority Acquisition area by the City:

View attachment 429743

The orange is the priority area, the large D in the centre north of this image is Don Mills Road, Eglinton is running E-W across the middle of the area.
I don't understand what is the Orange priority area? Is the city trying to buy those lands and turn it into parks? If so that orange is the townhomes on Ferrand Drive... Please explain

Also where is that image from? Source

P.S. This study is from 2016 and in the last 6-7 years Flemo area developmental proposals are going to reshape the area. I think we need a new study done for the DM/EG area.
 
Last edited:
I don't understand what is the Orange priority area? Is the city trying to buy those lands and turn it into parks? If so that orange is the townhomes on Ferrand Drive... Please explain

Also where is that image from? Source

P.S. This study is from 2016 and in the last 6-7 years Flemo area developmental proposals are going to reshape the area. I think we need a new study done for the DM/EG area.

Source: https://www.toronto.ca/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/97fb-parkland-strategy-full-report-final.pdf (a lot of zooming involved)

And to my understanding, these are areas that fall below the 28m2 per person City guideline and so are a priority for additional parkland.
 
Once again, the space is fenced off; but note, it's not even being used by residents of this very building. It's dead, orphaned space. It's also too narrow and too close to ground-floor housing to meaningfully program.
I think unused awkward lawns like these should be renaturalized/reforested, it would improve air quality, provide more of a seaparation from the street, improve the ecology of the area, and get rid of pointless lawn maintenance costs. If not trees, then fully replaced by native shrubs/flowers.
 
I think unused awkward lawns like these should be renaturalized/reforested, it would improve air quality, provide more of a seaparation from the street, improve the ecology of the area, and get rid of pointless lawn maintenance costs. If not trees, then fully replaced by native shrubs/flowers.

If the buildings in question were to stay, in their current location, and there was no new infill, then I certainly agree.

I much prefer natural landscapes to lawns, both aesthetically and environmentally.

But I do think many of the townhomes will be redeveloped over time, and some of the towers too.

Renaturalization may still be appropriate depending on the timeline for redevelopment.
 
Good to see the parking cut down considerably. But let's see what else changed; from the Cover Letter:

1676311318934.png

1676311413407.png

1676311447042.png

1676311476764.png

1676311520911.png


1676311571629.png

1676311624394.png

1676311655798.png


****

* someone missed a policy guideline, unless it has been revised; The Arch. File is over 68mb! @innsertnamehere

****

Revised Site Plan:

1676311850555.png



Podium on these does not work for me:

1676312069989.png
 
A very underwhelming project, considering it comes from Diamond.

Three problems. 1) The elevations are unfortunately typical of a problem in new Toronto high-rise: lots of meaningless detail at the macro scale, while up close there’s monotony. What are all those curving members, and why do they only start halfway up?

2) The green brick, though welcome, doesn’t consistently come down to the ground, so it doesn’t read like masonry. (And what’s happening at grade appears to be a rather busy mix of aluminum, glass and some brick.)

3) The landscape at the corner is poor. The café (which is unfortunately very small) is cut off from the bus stop and the corner by berms. The circulation here makes no sense. And the area around the bus stop, which is going to be heavily used, is sod. That’ll be a mess.

The sort of project always promises to fix the mistakes of the previous generation and create public life. And yet the crucial few details are wrong.

778AFEF8-B27E-4B3D-8B6A-82EF88E80160.jpeg
 

Attachments

  • EBC4F562-C02F-47BE-AEBD-B241898B3887.jpeg
    EBC4F562-C02F-47BE-AEBD-B241898B3887.jpeg
    289.3 KB · Views: 33
Last edited:
While I readily appreciate the comment about this project being "typical of a problem in new Toronto high-rise: lots of meaningless detail at the macro scale, while up close there’s monotony," I disagree about "those curving members, and why do they only start halfway up." I for one am glad to see such interesting breaks in patterns and certainly don't care to see this kind of all too contemporary motif being rigidly applied from top to bottom; it would feel even more cookie cutter and phoned in than it already is.

Still, this kind of thing looks like elaborate clutter for its own kitschy sake - and I expect that look to date very rapidly.
 
A very underwhelming project, considering it comes from Diamond.

Three problems. 1) The elevations are unfortunately typical of a problem in new Toronto high-rise: lots of meaningless detail at the macro scale, while up close there’s monotony. What are all those curving members, and why do they only start halfway up?

2) The green brick, though welcome, doesn’t consistently come down to the ground, so it doesn’t read like masonry. (And what’s happening at grade appears to be a rather busy mix of aluminum, glass and some brick.)

3) The landscape at the corner is poor. The café (which is unfortunately very small) is cut off from the bus stop and the corner by berms. The circulation here makes no sense. And the area around the bus stop, which is going to be heavily used, is sod. That’ll be a mess.

The sort of project always promises to fix the mistakes of the previous generation and create public life. And yet the crucial few details are wrong.

I didn't have a chance today to pause, reflect and comment in detail here, and frankly, I still need more time.

That said. I am 110% in agreement on number 3.

In fact, as I look at it, they shrunk the park space at the east end of the site in a peculiar way, and grew this rather strange looking and non-functional plaza at the west end. I really don't like that.

Some room for a wider sidewalk to support a patio, great, but otherwise, keep the site 'urban' and 'animated' by keeping the retail experience as close to Don Mills as is practical.

***

Everyone knows how I feel about really small parks with irregular shapes; my opinion hasn't changed. Make it functional or don't waste the time, money and land.

****

I'm not sold on the green here.........but I'll give that more thought.

The rest I equally need to think about.......but I have to say, I'm just not sold that they've got this right yet.
 

Back
Top