[Amare]

What's the benefit to the TTC to complexify their ownership strata? I don't disagree with you in theory, but what's the benefit to the TTC in this situation?

More reliable operations on the 504 & 505 streetcar lines, larger terminal capacity allowance, and less streetcars being stuck on Dundas St for 5-10 mins at a time before entering Dundas West station.

If they were being honest with themselves, they would already know the streetcar platforms at Dundas West are already cramped and needs a far greater capacity allowance than what's currently available.

 

[concrete_and_light]

The City should have proactively either outright bought this site after Giraffe failed or started working on a deal with the owners/a developer to expand Dundas West Station and create a building on top of it that would provide housing and add commercial space while also allowing an expansion of Dundas West Station which really does currently seem quite cramped and often has a significant turning backlog of the 4 surface routes that go into the station. But our city is the opposite of proactive and doesn't invest in things. At this point I am resigned to this building happening even if it's not ideal in many ways, but it is really shortsighted on the part of the city to box in Dundas West station — one of the city's most connected transit hubs — into a constrained space like this.

However the one big counterpoint to all of this is just the sheer difficulty and disruption of redeveloping a transit hub like this. How do you build around it and replace it while also maintaining service operation, and if you can't maintain operation that would be a huge disruption for a major node like this.

 

[ProjectEnd]

More reliable operations on the 504 & 505 streetcar lines, larger terminal capacity allowance, and less streetcars being stuck on Dundas St for 5-10 mins at a time before entering Dundas West station.

If they were being honest with themselves, they would already know the streetcar platforms at Dundas West are already cramped and needs a far greater capacity allowance than what's currently available.

Sure, but it's the TTC. It's - for many reasons, both good and bad - not the MTR.

The City should have proactively either outright bought this site after Giraffe failed or started working on a deal with the owners/a developer to expand Dundas West Station and create a building on top of it that would provide housing and add commercial space while also allowing an expansion of Dundas West Station which really does currently seem quite cramped and often has a significant turning backlog of the 4 surface routes that go into the station. But our city is the opposite of proactive and doesn't invest in things. At this point I am resigned to this building happening even if it's not ideal in many ways, but it is really shortsighted on the part of the city to box in Dundas West station — one of the city's most connected transit hubs — into a constrained space like this.

However the one big counterpoint to all of this is just the sheer difficulty and disruption of redeveloping a transit hub like this. How do you build around it and replace it while also maintaining service operation, and if you can't maintain operation that would be a huge disruption for a major node like this.

I don't know what to do with this post.

 

[Amare]

The City should have proactively either outright bought this site after Giraffe failed or started working on a deal with the owners/a developer to expand Dundas West Station and create a building on top of it that would provide housing and add commercial space while also allowing an expansion of Dundas West Station which really does currently seem quite cramped and often has a significant turning backlog of the 4 surface routes that go into the station. But our city is the opposite of proactive and doesn't invest in things. At this point I am resigned to this building happening even if it's not ideal in many ways, but it is really shortsighted on the part of the city to box in Dundas West station — one of the city's most connected transit hubs — into a constrained space like this.

However the one big counterpoint to all of this is just the sheer difficulty and disruption of redeveloping a transit hub like this. How do you build around it and replace it while also maintaining service operation, and if you can't maintain operation that would be a huge disruption for a major node like this.

You're overthinking this. Although what you're saying would be nice, they dont need to cantelever the entire development over Dundas West station to achieve what I was saying. All that literally needs to be done is take a small portion of the base at the rear development and allow a provision for a space for an additional streetcar track. This would allow for expanded platforms and maybe even a spare operational storage track.

Sure, but it's the TTC. It's - for many reasons, both good and bad - not the MTR.

You're right they are most certainly not, and will never be as this city/province arent capable of handing the TTC that kind of oversight. To be honest, I dont even think i'd ever want them to have that oversight as it would probably be too much for them to handle.

But in this case they dont need to be like the MTR, this is on City Planning and the TTC should be explaning these concerns to them. Something which, they currently arent doing.

 

[concrete_and_light]

I don't know what to do with this post.

lol fair enough!!!

You're overthinking this. Although what you're saying would be nice, they dont need to cantelever the entire development over Dundas West station to achieve what I was saying. All that literally needs to be done is take a small portion of the base at the rear development and allow a provision for a space for an additional streetcar track. This would allow for expanded platforms and maybe even a spare operational storage track.

You're right — I was operating under the assumption that there isn't enough space to expand the station + redevelop the corner significantly and from there I was getting into a fantasyland idea, but that's just not true, what you suggest could have totally happened with only a small expansion of the station's footprint.

 

[Jimto]

Jimmy Karygiannis is that you!? On a serious note ...

Oh, that's lovely. Are you going to take shots at anybody that disagrees with you? And then try to fob it off as humour?

... this development is flawed in just about every aspect imaginable:

-It does not fit to existing neighborhood characteristics (anyone who has taken a walk along the neighborhood will know that the corridor on Bloor east of Dundas is vastly different than the corridor on Bloor west of Dundas). As such there should be some kind of step-down to recognize this.

-The podium is horrid design work and no one knows what it's trying to accomplish

-The tower itself makes it seem like the tower is overhanging on the intersection

-At street level, it doesnt even attempt to a setback to accommodate for the heavy pedestrian flows (the proposed "plaza" is a joke, and isnt much of a plaza)

I could go on but overall, this just doesnt work at all. I dont want to waste my breath because the developer isnt even serious about making any revisions, they just want to jam this ugly proposal through as is. This intersection needs the density dont get me wrong, but this is just a half-a**** design.

What neighbourhood characteristics? It fits in very well with the existing mish mash of buildings on the other three corners of the intersection.

You may dislike the podium but that doesn't make it "wrong".

At the last public meeting I attended, the architect spoke about his attempt to make the street level more pedestrian friendly. It wasn't acknowledged at all by those that disliked the proposal.

I disagree that it doesn't work. I think the NIMBY-ism being displayed is at the root of the problem. Neighbours protest proposals so developers push on with cheap and cheerful.

 

[Jimto]

The City should have proactively either outright bought this site after Giraffe failed or started working on a deal with the owners/a developer to expand Dundas West Station and create a building on top of it that would provide housing and add commercial space while also allowing an expansion of Dundas West Station which really does currently seem quite cramped and often has a significant turning backlog of the 4 surface routes that go into the station. But our city is the opposite of proactive and doesn't invest in things. At this point I am resigned to this building happening even if it's not ideal in many ways, but it is really shortsighted on the part of the city to box in Dundas West station — one of the city's most connected transit hubs — into a constrained space like this.

However the one big counterpoint to all of this is just the sheer difficulty and disruption of redeveloping a transit hub like this. How do you build around it and replace it while also maintaining service operation, and if you can't maintain operation that would be a huge disruption for a major node like this.

Logically, any extension of the station would take place by elongating it to the west over the existing tunnels. And I don't disagree with your criticism of the TTC, They have squandered so many opportunities and more importantly the City - their owner - allows them to do so.

 

[Amare]

Oh, that's lovely. Are you going to take shots at anybody that disagrees with you? And then try to fob it off as humour?


What neighbourhood characteristics? It fits in very well with the existing mish mash of buildings on the other three corners of the intersection.

You may dislike the podium but that doesn't make it "wrong".

At the last public meeting I attended, the architect spoke about his attempt to make the street level more pedestrian friendly. It wasn't acknowledged at all by those that disliked the proposal.

I disagree that it doesn't work. I think the NIMBY-ism being displayed is at the root of the problem. Neighbours protest proposals so developers push on with cheap and cheerful.

Cheer up Jimmy, it's a light hearted poke with no malice. No need to get offended...unless you're actually Jim Karygiannis.

As I have stated above, the characteristics on Bloor (west of Dundas) are vastly different than what is/will be present on Bloor (east of Dundas). I wont keep beating a dead horse here, but like I said, if one takes a stroll through the neighborhood they would see exactly what I mean. Or if one's lazy, I guess they could always refer to Google Maps.

As for street level, I dont know what the architect has been attempting to make street level more pedestrian friendly, but whatever they have been attempting they should try much harder. The current proposal has a huge podium which makes it seem overbearing, and sterile.

 

[Jimto]

... I wont keep beating a dead horse here, but like I said, if one takes a stroll through the neighborhood they would see exactly what I mean. Or if one's lazy, I guess they could always refer to Google Maps.

Not alone are you flogging a dead horse, but you won't even tell us the name of the horse you keep flogging. What is this neighbourhood character you speak of?

As for street level, I dont know what the architect has been attempting to make street level more pedestrian friendly, but whatever they have been attempting they should try much harder. The current proposal has a huge podium which makes it seem overbearing, and sterile.

The architect has set back the building on Bloor and also widened the corner on Dundas. The later was done in recognition of the pedestrian traffic along the narrow sidewalk at the Dundas side of the building. That pedestrian traffic could easily be alleviated by changes in the intersection, more traffic and pedestrian signals, etc. by the City and has nothing to do with the developer. His willingness to recognize it is laudable.

 

[Amare]

Not alone are you flogging a dead horse, but you won't even tell us the name of the horse you keep flogging. What is this neighbourhood character you speak of?



The architect has set back the building on Bloor and also widened the corner on Dundas. The later was done in recognition of the pedestrian traffic along the narrow sidewalk at the Dundas side of the building. That pedestrian traffic could easily be alleviated by changes in the intersection, more traffic and pedestrian signals, etc. by the City and has nothing to do with the developer. His willingness to recognize it is laudable.

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.

 

[ProjectEnd]

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.

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

 

[Amare]

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

Many of the blocks I dont see being redeveloped as they are mature, relatively dense builds already. Out of the blocks that are ripe for development on the south side of Bloor, realistically I only see mid-rises being built as a maximum. As of recent, we've seen some odd townhouse builds on the south side of Bloor.

 

[ProjectEnd]

Almost everything in your pink zones is a single family detached or, at most, a townhouse. Why are they exempt from redevelopment?

 

[NY99]

Almost everything in your pink zones is a single family detached or, at most, a townhouse. Why are they exempt from redevelopment?

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.

 

[Amare]

Almost everything in your pink zones is a single family detached or, at most, a townhouse. Why are they exempt from redevelopment?

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).