[greenleaf]

I may have missed this, but is there any rationale why the new north-south street is not connecting to Herman Avenue? Seems like a missed opportunity to better connect the site to the existing grid on a third side.

 

[steveintoronto]

I may have missed this, but is there any rationale why the new north-south street is not connecting to Herman Avenue? Seems like a missed opportunity to better connect the site to the existing grid on a third side.

Even in the earliest iterations, it was understood that no vehicular traffic was to traverse the neighbourhood to the south, for obvious reasons. Pedestrian traffic is another matter, and the neighbourhood is quite happy to accommodate that, as it now does, and even double that is welcome if it's part of connecting communities across the tracks. There was an earlier proposal to funnel traffic from the southeast corner under the tracks in an underpass. That has now disappeared completely, as well as the pedestrian bridge becoming a 'gray matter'.

I haven't fully perused the reports, (the format is a bit difficult to follow, pics have no index numbers or descriptive text attached, and often bear no relationship to the paragraph surrounding them), but I did copy this off and forward to some architects I was discussing this with as per parking ratio per tenant: (edit: This continues to be a very hot topic, a discussion in itself, and about to become so again on the Laneway Project. See note quoted at end)
(Apologies for loss of paragraph format when copying into email form)

3.6.2 Parking Supply is Minimized yet Appropriate A reduced minimum parking supply is proposed as part of the comprehensive TDM Plan proposed as part of the Master Plan. The TDM plan seeks to minimize traffic generation of the proposed development to this highly transit supportive area. A key aspect of the TDM plan is the adoption of an appropriately reduced parking supply for the Master Plan while simultaneously maintaining adequate levels of parking to support the development plan. It is proposed to share non-resident parking within a single, consolidated, and “pooled” commercially operated parking facility located within the underground parking facility. Parking demands of the different commercial uses proposed as part of the Master Plan, including office, retail, and residential visitors, would be met within this facility recognizing that the peak periods of demand of each use occur at different times of the day and week. This “pooling” of parking achieves significant efficiencies in the overall supply required to support the composite development plan. A reduced minimum parking supply for residents is proposed that falls within the range of supplies and demands observed for other new condominium developments in transit accessible locations across the City. A reduced minimum standard is adequate as one of a number of proactive measures designed to reduce vehicle use. Vehicular parking will be provided within a two-level underground parking garage. The parking supply will support the parking requirements related to the proposed residential, residential visitor, retail, and office uses, although the overall parking supply will be lower than the existing Zoning By-law requirement. Further details on the proposed parking supply will be provided in subsequent applications. The proposed parking supply will provide for the essential and recurring parking demands generated by the office, retail, and residential components of the site and take advantage of shared parking opportunities particularly the variation in temporal parking demand between each of the component uses. Car share provisions are included within the proposed parking facility

http://app.toronto.ca/DevelopmentAp...4360692&isCofASearch=false&isTlabSearch=false

I'm skeptical of some of the claims for the present intersection capacities and functionality. I may be misspeaking for the community, but my impression is that height and density are not a prime issue, it's expected and accepted. The major local issue (as I look across to the Dundas and Bloor intersection which is almost constantly a problem) is traffic!

The City will have to come to grips with the need for a grade separation at Dundas and Bloor, with the streetcars diverted into the 2280 subfloor or the one below it, whichever can offer the best pedestrian connection to the present Dundas West station. Another possibility is an underpass under Bloor that accommodates just streetcars to loop underground at the present Dundas West station, (This would require only one shared entry/exit ramp) and/or through traffic on Dundas unencumbered by the stoplights at Bloor. Since the whole area is to be redeveloped, the City had best be considering a solution to a problem that won't get any better. In fact, it's getting worse just by traffic increasing on Dundas and Bloor from elsewhere, let alone the impending huge density increase.

All the proposal projects right now is the northbound Dundas streetcar lane being transit only. That's insufficient. It does add another lane beside that, dedicated to eastbound turns onto Bloor from northbound on Dundas, but it's still not enough to do this the way it needs to be done.

Oddly, checking City releases on this, and within the reports themselves, the "Dundas West Mobility Hub" has become a region encompassing Keele, Howard Park and Symington/Sterling *in abstract only*.

Not one mention of the now vapourized proposal for the *actual physical*
Metrolinx Dundas West - Bloor Mobility Hub

What is mentioned more than a few times is the intersection volume projections for the other projects now approved or looking to be, and their impact on Dundas. Although mentioned only by the opposite intersecting street, (Edna Ave) this is flagged for caution, as I'd mentioned in a post last week:
http://highstar.ca/construction-projects/dundas-west-towers/

More later with detailed reference to my points.

In reference to parking ratio flagged above, and how this is cathartic for how this city develops:

Dear Laneway Suite Supporter!
The time has finally come! On Wednesday May 2nd, Toronto and East York Community Council (TEYCC) is considering the Final Report that will allow laneway houses in Toronto.

This meeting is of utmost importance, and we need you to write your councillor in support oflaneway housing.

Right now there are two ways you can help:
1. Email your local Councillor and the TEYCC in support (see attached form letter).

2. Attend the TEYCC meeting next Wednesday May 2nd, 10:00am at City Hall. If you would like to speak in favour of the initiative, you can request to depute at the meeting by following the link below.

Click here to see the agenda item for the meeting on May 2nd:

For more detail on our journey and what is being proposed, visit the blog section of our website.

Click here to see our blog about the Final Report.

We would like to thank you for your tremendous support leading up to this moment, and we thank you in advance for continuing to advocate for laneway housing. You are helping to enhance our communities and the urban fabric of the city.

Sincerely,

The Lanescape Team

 

[greenleaf]

Even in the earliest iterations, it was understood that no vehicular traffic was to traverse the neighbourhood to the south, for obvious reasons.

It is not at all obvious to me why streets should not connect here. IIRC the city is trying fix issues like this in places like Regent Park and St. Jamestown. Why would we want to repeat the mistake here?

Edited to add:

“Frequent streets and short blocks are valuable because of the fabric of intricate cross use that they permit among the users of a city neighbourhood” from The Need for Short Blocks section of D&L of NA Cities by Jane Jacobs.

 

[steveintoronto]

It is not at all obvious to me why streets should not connect here. IIRC the city is trying fix issues like this in places like Regent Park and St. Jamestown. Why would we want to repeat the mistake here?

Edited to add:

“Frequent streets and short blocks are valuable because of the fabric of intricate cross use that they permit among the users of a city neighbourhood” from The Need for Short Blocks section of D&L of NA Cities by Jane Jacobs.

Perhaps the density proposed may offer a clue? You miss how this developer is bending over backwards to *avoid* vehicular traffic through the adjacent established low-density neighbourhoods.

The massive, 10-acre development at 2280 Dundas Street W., will have 2,500 residential units and office spaces to employ more than 3,000 people.

If you lived right next to that, and your quiet little dead-end street was to connect through to it, how would you feel about it?

 

[greenleaf]

Perhaps the density proposed may offer a clue? You miss how this developer is bending over backwards to *avoid* vehicular traffic through the adjacent established low-density neighbourhoods.

If you lived right next to that, and your quiet little dead-end street was to connect through to it, how would you feel about it?

Why should people living here be disconnected from other people living in the neighbourhood? The density does not offer a clue to me.

I wouldn’t have the audacity or arrogance to think that I could control who goes down my street at any time regardless of how connected or not it was to the greater grid. But then again, given that these streets are about 500m from a subway stop, GO station, and airport express rail I think it is absurd to expect a low density neighbourhood here.

If I lived here, I would want as many options as possible to go in and around the neighbourhood by all modes of transportation, with the caveat that the street design is made with children and elderly people in mind first. If it works well for them, it is going to work really well for everyone else.

And I would also welcome more people living here. Neighbours for more neighbours and all that jazz.

 

[steveintoronto]

You appear to refuse to understand. *Vehicular Traffic* is being tightly controlled. I made it clear that *pedestrian* traffic would be welcome. The neighbourhood to the immediate south *doesn't have the roads* to handle the volume of vehicular traffic that 2500 residential units and 3000 workers require.

This project is *dependent* on community support for its success. Turning quiet streets where kids can play into major feeder routes doesn't endear itself to the neighbourhood. This is all detailed in the reports.

BLOOR-DUNDAS
MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT
URBAN TRANSPORTATION CONSIDERATIONS
OFFICIAL PLAN AMENDMENT
PART 1 OF 2
Prepared for:
Choice Properties REIT
April, 2018

 

[greenleaf]

You appear to refuse to understand. *Vehicular Traffic* is being tightly controlled. I made it clear that *pedestrian* traffic would be welcome. The neighbourhood to the immediate south *doesn't have the roads* to handle the volume of vehicular traffic that 2500 residential units and 3000 workers require.

This project is *dependent* on community support for its success. Turning quiet streets where kids can play into major feeder routes doesn't endear itself to the neighbourhood. This is all detailed in the reports.

I am aware, thanks. I am trying to address and understand the underlying principal of why this neighbourhood and these streets are so important that they should receive this special consideration to block connectivity (taking into consideration is location next to a major transit hub) when other hoods and other streets throughout the city are able to adapt and absorb more units and more workers than this site is.

 

[vic]

Why would you even want to add motor vehicle connections from the neighbourhood to the south? The only streets that could possibly connect in are Ritchie Ave (into the south-east corner of the lot...park land) and Herman Ave. via Ritchie Ave. I guess you could use the laneway behind Herman Ave. too.... But those options are all very tiny...you can barely fit two-way traffic down any of those streets, and it would all depend on traffic going in and out of Ritchie Ave.

Corner of Ritchie and Herman: https://www.google.ca/maps/@43.6537...4!1sI7mp-Iha9OKW4HljQXb1iA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

Keep the car traffic on Dundas and Bloor where it belongs. Maintain good ped/bike connections from all directions. What they're planning already is pretty good.

 

[Midtown Urbanist]

Feeling pretty optimistic about this site.

Interesting that sub-centres keep forming in the old City of Toronto while the suburbs outside of NYCC can hardly replicate.

 

[67Cup]

Feeling pretty optimistic about this site.

Interesting that sub-centres keep forming in the old City of Toronto while the suburbs outside of NYCC can hardly replicate.

I like this site too. But there are a number of “sub-centres” forming elsewhere also. Don Mills and Eglinton will be one example.

 

[steveintoronto]

Why should people living here be disconnected from other people living in the neighbourhood?

They're not, you still completely miss the thrust. You couldn't state the car lobby's viewpoint more. I look forward, as do local businesses, transit uses and cyclists, to the like benefits this brings to the area.

I like this site too. But there are a number of “sub-centres” forming elsewhere also. Don Mills and Eglinton will be one example.

Any links on those? I suspect one of the aspects Wisla was focusing on was the overwhelming emphasis on transit/pedestrian/cycling access for 2280, to the degree of a large development like this being unseen in Toronto or region before.

The only thing close to it I can find in TO is this: https://www.thestar.com/life/health_wellness/2009/09/16/carfree_condo_42_storeys_no_parking.html

Not mentioned in that article, and brought up in my discussion with architects (one much a cyclist, but cynical on non-parking for Canadians, let alone Toronto) with diverging opinions is that the building has a "Heritage" status:

Royal Canadian Military Institute

• 426 University Avenue, Toronto, Ontario
• Institutional / Heritage Conservation

This project involved the heritage conservation of the Royal Canadian Military Institute on Toronto’s University Avenue. Built in 1907, expanded in 1912, 1935 and renovated in the 1960s, the RCMI has a long history of evolving to meet the needs of its members.

A partnership between the Royal Canadian Military Institute and Tribute Communities will allow for a condominium to be built on the site, while accommodating the expansion of the RCMI and providing improved storage and display of their significant military library and museological collection. The new building will include a reconstruction of the historic façade as it appeared in 1935 which will be the main entrance to the building.

The project involves the documentation of the building as it currently exists, salvage of some original elements, and reproduction of the façade according to archival records.

http://www.eraarch.ca/project/royal-canadian-military-institute/

2280 certainly isn't heritage! I can fully understand Choice REIT pushing for such a low number of parking spots per persons resident and working/shopping. What I'm still trying to suss is whether this is part altruistic, and/or just really savvy marketing sense, and part of a new corporate leaning.

I suspect a bit of both, they're inseparable in instances like 2280 especially. But no matter the ulterior motive, this appears to be a fresh and unique approach for Toronto, if not Ontario. And as a direct neighbour and very concerned citizen, they have my conditionally full support, and that of many other neighbours. And that alone is good business sense.

 

[greenleaf]

Believe me, me defending car connectivity surprises me too, but I think I’ve outlined why it is a bad call to not create street connectivity here (and considering the city is trying to remedy this issue in other neighbourhoods).

Anyway, I appreciate the nuanced debate. Cheers.

 

[steveintoronto]

but I think I’ve outlined why it is a bad call to not create street connectivity here

Street connectivity is prominent in the reports, and there *is* connectivity, even a new road connecting to Bloor, and much discussion and proposition on improving the present one to Dundas. What's being studiously avoided is overwhelming adjacent quiet *residential* side streets, as well the concern should be.

 

[W. K. Lis]

Why would you even want to add motor vehicle connections from the neighbourhood to the south? The only streets that could possibly connect in are Ritchie Ave (into the south-east corner of the lot...park land) and Herman Ave. via Ritchie Ave. I guess you could use the laneway behind Herman Ave. too.... But those options are all very tiny...you can barely fit two-way traffic down any of those streets, and it would all depend on traffic going in and out of Ritchie Ave.

Corner of Ritchie and Herman: https://www.google.ca/maps/@43.6537...4!1sI7mp-Iha9OKW4HljQXb1iA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

Keep the car traffic on Dundas and Bloor where it belongs. Maintain good ped/bike connections from all directions. What they're planning already is pretty good.

The "new school building" could connect with Herman Avenue. What the school building would look like would be guided by the school boards (plural), such as entrances.

 

[jaco_says]

Here is the presentation that Choice made at the last meeting: https://www.dropbox.com/s/3isd9515z...ed Presentation - April 18th revised.pdf?dl=0

I quite like the plans for the inside of the Rail Bank.