[ProjectEnd]

let's be honest here, short of YIMBYs staging a coup at city hall, the most we’ll ever see out of single-family home neighbourhoods is missing middle-type stuff. Fourplexes and such. I don’t see any significant mid or high rise presence in the foreseeable future.

I don't disagree.

Give me a call the day you see single, detached homes being assembled and up-zoned for massive redevelopment. The most we would ever see done on sites like this are townhouses, and even then you would be fighting tooth and nail to ever see that getting built.

In this particular area, this area is about as quiet of a residential as you can get before entering the suburbs (ie: Old town Toronto style).

As stated above: I don't disagree. However what you'd been previously advocating for was 'step downs' and 'transitions' to lower-scaled areas. I therefore read your map post as an endorsement of the pink areas as 'off limits'. While I agree that we won't be getting density in there in the short term, I don't see the need to 'transition' to anything lower, especially if it means the loss of potential density where we are able to have it (main streets only, sadly).

Funny enough, this came up on Twitter today:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1310605050083975171

 

[Jimto]

Why are you privileging the pink zones to be exempt from growth?

The pink zones are all single family homes and have blanket permission to be converted to triplexes. Acquiring enough property to build anything larger would be prohibitively expensive. There are some exceptional sites like the property on Glenlake at Keele where the developer is/was trying to build 6 townhouses on what is a single family home./lot.

 

[Jimto]

Here's a quick rough illustration of what i'm referring to below. Areas in red are high-rise districts built/will be built in the future, areas in pink are low rise areas, while areas in blue are generally mid-rise/future mid-rise builds.

As you can see with the area immediately south of Dundas West, it would be appropriate to have a project that takes into account the neighboring builds in the area. In other words, if you want to propose a high-rise build sure but at least taper it down to the west where there will most likely be mid-rise builds in the future.

As for your suggesting of having more traffic/pedestrian signals, I have no idea what that has to do with alleviating the heavy pedestrian traffic this intersection is seeing, and will be seeing in the near distant future.

I see nothing wrong with bookending a string of midrise buildings with a tower at a major intersection.

As regards traffic/pedestrian signals, the only reason that the Dundas frontage of the proposed development is a pedestrian disaster is because pedestrians are forced to walk along there to get to the TTC. If a crosswalk was introduced just a little further north on Dundas, it would allow pedestrians to use the much wider sidewalk on the east side of Dundas. It would also facilitate the future UPX link. An alternative would be to add traffic signals at the east end of Edna which would greatly alleviate some of the traffic conflicts that exist today.

 

[ProjectEnd]

The pink zones are all single family homes and have blanket permission to be converted to triplexes. Acquiring enough property to build anything larger would be prohibitively expensive. There are some exceptional sites like the property on Glenlake at Keele where the developer is/was trying to build 6 townhouses on what is a single family home./lot.

Under the current rules, yes, it doesn't make any sense - however if permissions were changed, that entire calculus goes out the window. If I can get 80 units on a couple of house form lots (20 storeys, 4 units per floor), paying $2-3m per house doesn't seem that bad. Dare to dream, I guess...

 

[Amare]

I see nothing wrong with bookending a string of midrise buildings with a tower at a major intersection.

As regards traffic/pedestrian signals, the only reason that the Dundas frontage of the proposed development is a pedestrian disaster is because pedestrians are forced to walk along there to get to the TTC. If a crosswalk was introduced just a little further north on Dundas, it would allow pedestrians to use the much wider sidewalk on the east side of Dundas. It would also facilitate the future UPX link. An alternative would be to add traffic signals at the east end of Edna which would greatly alleviate some of the traffic conflicts that exist today.

You can call me cynical, but I dont see how a crosswalk or additional traffic light at Edna would alleviate the situation. I compare this situation to a bit of what we see at Pape station. Over there, a similar situation is happening where pedestrians are forced to shuffle between a narrow sidewalk on Pape to get to the station. There were streetlights installed right outside of the station which has helped to an extent, but the heavy pedestrian traffic on the one side still persists to this day. The similarities end on the fact that Dundas West sees a heavier pedestrian flow into the station.

As stated above: I don't disagree. However what you'd been previously advocating for was 'step downs' and 'transitions' to lower-scaled areas. I therefore read your map post as an endorsement of the pink areas as 'off limits'. While I agree that we won't be getting density in there in the short term, I don't see the need to 'transition' to anything lower, especially if it means the loss of potential density where we are able to have it (main streets only, sadly).

I guess that's where our POVs differ. To me, I see a need to transition and scale down to the mid-rise we'll likely see being put up immediately to the west of this side along Bloor. As it currently stands physically, this is just too overbearing on the intersection as is.

 

[Jimto]

Under the current rules, yes, it doesn't make any sense - however if permissions were changed, that entire calculus goes out the window. If I can get 80 units on a couple of house form lots (20 storeys, 4 units per floor), paying $2-3m per house doesn't seem that bad. Dare to dream, I guess...

With so much underutilization of existing arteries (avenues is, I believe, the term used by City Planning). Look at all the two floor buildings on all the main streets. Developing these to 4 or 8 floors mid block and 25 story towers at the intersections is the future I see for the City. In the meanwhile, preserve neighbourhoods for single families plus a rental unit or two.

 

[Jimto]

You can call me cynical, but I dont see how a crosswalk or additional traffic light at Edna would alleviate the situation. I compare this situation to a bit of what we see at Pape station. Over there, a similar situation is happening where pedestrians are forced to shuffle between a narrow sidewalk on Pape to get to the station. There were streetlights installed right outside of the station which has helped to an extent, but the heavy pedestrian traffic on the one side still persists to this day. The similarities end on the fact that Dundas West sees a heavier pedestrian flow into the station.

On a daily basis, TTC vehicles are delayed entering and exiting Dundas West. Traffic signals would certainly help with that. Pedestrian signals would allow people a number of choices to get to the station, choices they don't have today. Of course, the developers generously widening the sidewalk and easing the corner will also help.

I guess that's where our POVs differ. To me, I see a need to transition and scale down to the mid-rise we'll likely see being put up immediately to the west of this side along Bloor. As it currently stands physically, this is just too overbearing on the intersection as is.

What is the "need"? Pedestrians walking along the north side of Bloor won't be looking up at the buildings. Your POV just seems a bit theoretical rather than practical to me.

 

[ProjectEnd]

You can call me cynical, but I dont see how a crosswalk or additional traffic light at Edna would alleviate the situation. I compare this situation to a bit of what we see at Pape station. Over there, a similar situation is happening where pedestrians are forced to shuffle between a narrow sidewalk on Pape to get to the station. There were streetlights installed right outside of the station which has helped to an extent, but the heavy pedestrian traffic on the one side still persists to this day. The similarities end on the fact that Dundas West sees a heavier pedestrian flow into the station.


I guess that's where our POVs differ. To me, I see a need to transition and scale down to the mid-rise we'll likely see being put up immediately to the west of this side along Bloor. As it currently stands physically, this is just too overbearing on the intersection as is.

Agree to disagree then.

With so much underutilization of existing arteries (avenues is, I believe, the term used by City Planning). Look at all the two floor buildings on all the main streets. Developing these to 4 or 8 floors mid block and 25 story towers at the intersections is the future I see for the City. In the meanwhile, preserve neighbourhoods for single families plus a rental unit or two.

I'd argue that our naturally-fine-grained retail streets are far more valuable than the countless neighbourhoods of 'Toronto Specials' and 'Bay and Gables'. What's more, there are fewer of these commercial landscapes throughout the city. I've got almost no time for the idea that we need to keep wealthy, largely white and population-shrinking areas in amber at the expense of others for what really amounts to political expediency.

In fact, one of the OG neighbourhoods that started (but was stopped) accommodating new growth in the 50s to the 70s was the Annex. In fact, I've got a whole thread of examples. Let's do this again:

https://twitter.com/x/status/903278492103704578

 

[Jimto]

...
To me, I see a need to transition and scale down to the mid-rise we'll likely see being put up immediately to the west of this side along Bloor. As it currently stands physically, this is just too overbearing on the intersection as is.

Too overbearing from what perspective? Crossways defines that intersection already with non-descript buildings on the other corners. This will not be out of place. For me, the main issues with the proposed development are transitional: the two years of traffic chaos will be unbearable and, as always, mismanaged by the City.

 

[concrete_and_light]

I'd argue that our naturally-fine-grained retail streets are far more valuable than the countless neighbourhoods of 'Toronto Specials' and 'Bay and Gables'. What's more, there are fewer of these commercial landscapes throughout the city. I've got almost no time for the idea that we need to keep wealthy, largely white and population-shrinking areas in amber at the expense of others for what really amounts to political expediency.

Very very much this. It's absurd and depressing that our city is fine with destroying one of our greatest assets — fine-grained vibrant main streets and the local economies and communities they support because the idea of densifying the designated residential neighbourhoods (which are now enclaves of growing inequality with shrinking populations) is seen as politically impossible due to the political power of the homeowners within.

In light of that, I understand the desire to protect the fine-grained streetscape along Bloor west of Dundas there, and I understand the fear that now this will contribute to a destruction of that by setting a precedent for taller buildings that could then be applied thoughtlessly west of here by the LPAT, but independent of the context-free precedent-based way of deciding things that we seem to be sometimes subject to (such as the Entertainment District copy-paste of identical heights), I definitely do not see anything wrong with having a tall tower anchor every corner of Dundas and Bloor (a major transportation and density hub which already has Crossways and will soon have more) which then steps down to midrise to the west as you move away from the intersection. Having towers at every corner makes far more sense to me than just having towers on the east side of Dundas and then having the west corner midrise — that seems very arbitrary to me. A tower is appropriate here.

 

[Amare]

Too overbearing from what perspective? Crossways defines that intersection already with non-descript buildings on the other corners. This will not be out of place. For me, the main issues with the proposed development are transitional: the two years of traffic chaos will be unbearable and, as always, mismanaged by the City.

The Crossways (as screwed up of a complex as it is) at least steps back away from the intersection. This proposal attempts to do the opposite, it cantilevers over towards it.

From a physical scale it's just out of place, and would blend poorly with the future characteristics of the intersection. The neighbouring Choice Properties development across the street recognizes the need for set backs and are incorporating this through an actual plaza at the corner of the intersection, while the towers are set back to an extent from the proposed plaza.

In other words, 2 out of the 4 corners of the intersection would have set backs from the intersection while 1 doesnt even make an attempt at that. As for the remaining corner at the southeast, we'll have to see what happens there.

All i'm saying here is 3 things:

1. Integrate the development with the existing Dundas West station
2. A tower is more than appropriate on this site, but at least have it step down a bit from west to east
3. Address the street level via a proper plaza at the corner on the intersection, and break up/reduce the size of the monstrous podium

 

[Ward8]

I'd argue that our naturally-fine-grained retail streets are far more valuable than the countless neighbourhoods of 'Toronto Specials' and 'Bay and Gables'.

I agree with regards to the main street comment, but "Toronto Specials" and "Bay and Gables" are reasonably dense and not present in the bulk of the yellowbelt. Also the examples listed in the twitter thread are really nice to look at, but, other than 1 or 2 examples, pretty piss poor urbanism. The site in question makes sense at its current height and density. The main issue for me is the chunky, monotonous podium at the ground level. I agree with 2 of your bullet points Amare, but, given the transit situation nearby, this is a prime location for maximum density. At least it'll be the best looking building in that intersection for a while.

 

[Jimto]

The Crossways (as screwed up of a complex as it is) at least steps back away from the intersection. This proposal attempts to do the opposite, it cantilevers over towards it.

From a physical scale it's just out of place, and would blend poorly with the future characteristics of the intersection. The neighbouring Choice Properties development across the street recognizes the need for set backs and are incorporating this through an actual plaza at the corner of the intersection, while the towers are set back to an extent from the proposed plaza.

In other words, 2 out of the 4 corners of the intersection would have set backs from the intersection while 1 doesnt even make an attempt at that. As for the remaining corner at the southeast, we'll have to see what happens there.

All i'm saying here is 3 things:

1. Integrate the development with the existing Dundas West station
2. A tower is more than appropriate on this site, but at least have it step down a bit from west to east
3. Address the street level via a proper plaza at the corner on the intersection, and break up/reduce the size of the monstrous podium

1. is an issue for the TTC and not the developer of this project. By the way, are you aware of the four train tunnels between this development and the subway station?
2. okay.
3. that is already there.

 

[Amare]

1. is an issue for the TTC and not the developer of this project. By the way, are you aware of the four train tunnels between this development and the subway station?
2. okay.
3. that is already there.

The storage tracks you're referring to at Keele Yard are located under the Dundas West bus/streetcar platforms, not this development. I dont see how that has any bearing on expanding the existing terminal. And yes, the TTC/city should be working with the developer on this. Why they haven't thought of that is beyond me.

As for the plaza you keep referring to, it's a half-baked token effort.

 

[Jimto]

The storage tracks you're referring to at Keele Yard are located under the Dundas West bus/streetcar platforms, not this development. I dont see how that has any bearing on expanding the existing terminal. And yes, the TTC/city should be working with the developer on this. Why they haven't thought of that is beyond me.

As for the plaza you keep referring to, it's a half-baked token effort.

Given that you're aware of Keele Yard, how would you suggest the developer integrates with the station. As I said, that is a TTC project. I know the Giraffe developer was rebuffed by the TTC when he tried to discuss it with them.

The proposed plaza is just fine as it will only ever be used to pass through the area. The wind effects from Crossways already make the area too windy to linger except on the calmest of days.