[steveintoronto]

I just took a good look around the site boundaries, and the Castlepoint development to the east of the tracks.

Take a good look at this drawing: (Castlepoint Development under construction to the east of the tracks from 2280 Dundas)

It's inaccurate! By quite a bit. The pilings and ground prep for "Block 1" come considerably further south than indicated. Any access to Sterling Rd, either by pedestrian bridge or a new road tunnel/bridge from the 2280 site is not possible without massive changes.

The drawing displayed is schematic at best.

2280 is going to have to have main access via Dundas, there's going to have to be traffic lights and reworked roadway, and more than ever, the established neighbourhood immediately to the south needs to remain isolated as per road access.

Knowing that most of the folks gravitating to a new development there as well as the Loblaws and other retail tenants are going to drive, my favour for this project is going off the deep end. The City has known this situation has been pending for decades. Where the hell was Planning and Roads on this?

 

[torontocolin]

Don't forget that that map shows Perth after they've relocated it. The current road runs through Block 2, but that will change.

The city's concept assumed that the school stayed where it is. If the school is part of the redevelopment then there's a possibility of multiple connections along Dundas or even a direct connection to Bloor.

Ultimately, though, there isn't a great way to disperse vehicles because the road network doesn't have the capacity to take on a huge influx of vehicles no matter how good the connections are. The solution is to encourage people to not drive. That means good connections to Dundas West and Bloor stations (and the future Barrie GO station), an easy way to get bikes to the railpath and other new cycling infrastructure, and a complete community so that most residents can mostly walk everywhere they need to go.

 

[steveintoronto]

Don't forget that that map shows Perth after they've relocated it. The current road runs through Block 2, but that will change.

That appears to jive with the foundation footings/piles.

The city's concept assumed that the school stayed where it is. If the school is part of the redevelopment then there's a possibility of multiple connections along Dundas or even a direct connection to Bloor.

Yeah...there would be no tears shed to see that school relocated, as part of the development or somewhere else. It's a pretty bleak corner, and as some other posters have pointed out "Giraffe" on the NW corner and the TTC station both need to be developed. And the SW corner. Refaced?

Ultimately, though, there isn't a great way to disperse vehicles because the road network doesn't have the capacity to take on a huge influx of vehicles no matter how good the connections are. The solution is to encourage people to not drive.

There isn't. I even considered heroic ways to do it, all beyond reason on closer examination. And more than ever, the residential community to the south can't be compromised. Just cycled through there, and it's a gem. More than Yuppies done well, the kids, gardens and homes are healthy and vibrant. Those few blocks have come up fast in even the last decade.

That means good connections to Dundas West and Bloor stations (and the future Barrie GO station), an easy way to get bikes to the railpath and other new cycling infrastructure, and a complete community so that most residents can mostly walk everywhere they need to go.

It's got to be that way! I can't see this working any other way. And for those who do fit that profile, it's an excellent location. Pedestrian/cycle trail bridge across the tracks can be done no problem, and it would tie communities together, and those in the Castlepoint Development much closer to shopping...*without a car!*

Many thanks for that post Colin!

 

[vic]

I too would like to see this redeveloped into a VERY transit/bike/walk focused area. It's truly a nearly ideal situation for it. TTC Subway, streetcars, buses.... GO to downtown, and when RER is up and running, quick access to a VERY large area, via Union. UP Express too... And the West Toronto Railpath, with extension/connection into downtown will make this even better for cycling. Most other necessities are already a short walk or bike ride away too.

That idea of the bridge over to the Railpath / Perth-Sterling would be a very important component in making this happen. If you can get people from the Junction Triangle to walk/bike over to Loblaws / jobs / other retail here, you can save on much of the driving into the site. Same with having a shorter walk from Bloor GO/UP (which would also be future east entrance for Dundas West TTC). Even Castlepoint were looking into making this connection happen back in the earlier days of their Sterling Rd. proposals, but the cost of crossing the wide corridor and working with the railways became prohibitive. Maybe they'd still be willing to work something out, but with construction already happening along Perth/Railpath, maybe that will become more difficult now...

Maybe a right-turn only in / out from the eastbound lanes on Bloor would help alleviate some of the pressure on Dundas (Bishop M. already has an entrance there).

I live right nearby. I would have no issue with going BIG and BOLD with this site, especially if the BOLD comes from being exceptionally progressive with car-free / car-light development. The site is big enough that you can have good setbacks to prevent overwhelming Ritchie and Herman Avenues.

TL;DR: Bring homes, shops, jobs, people. Leave the cars away.

 

[smably]

How's this for a pie-in-the sky idea: build an underground pedestrian connection to Dundas West Station underneath Bloor, then add a new streetcar loop above, near the southeast corner of Bloor/Dundas. Route streetcars into the site at a new controlled intersection between Bloor and Boustead. Now the 504 and 505 can avoid the congested Bloor/Dundas intersection and the difficult left turn into Dundas West Station, improving reliability and speed. Transit connectivity to this development improves, reducing traffic impacts. And the new loop could be built to accommodate the new streetcars, which are not well served by the current loops at Dundas West.

 

[dowlingm]

I think there should be an expectation that the current notched in lane beside the school be extended back as far as practicable, designed as right-turn-only at the Bloor intersection, the "middle lane" being for through traffic and have the northbound streetcar as the only traffic permitted to proceed straight through the intersection from the outside lane. The question then becomes whether left turns onto Bloor become restricted for some or all of the day. Opportunities to rework such constrained intersections come infrequently and should be seized, with reasonable balancing concessions to the developers.

Replacing the school, which seems to be on quite a constrained site, would seem like a good idea, but where in the vicinity would create a better outcome? A taller, narrow school could be built to free up recreation space but it's still right beside the rail corridor. There are not a lot of sites visibly underused in the vicinity with the exception of Lansdowne Yard, which given its history of contamination issues might not be a popular choice.

 

[vic]

The question then becomes whether left turns onto Bloor become restricted for some or all of the day.

There are already left turn restrictions Mon-Sat 7am-7pm (TTC vehicles excepted south on Dundas to east on Bloor). It's a pretty good source of honking and streetcar gonging when not followed.

Edited to add Streeview of turn restriction sign:
https://www.google.ca/maps/@43.6563...4!1s3AlQgP6yDw-HEhqgxB4J2w!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

 

[dowlingm]

There are already left turn restrictions Mon-Sat 7am-7pm (TTC vehicles excepted south on Dundas to east on Bloor). It's a pretty good source of honking and streetcar gonging when not followed.

Edited to add Streeview of turn restriction sign:
https://www.google.ca/maps/@43.6563...4!1s3AlQgP6yDw-HEhqgxB4J2w!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

Given how faded the right hand is I'm not surprised that I didn't spot it when I looked earlier. Maybe they need an illuminated one like downtown.

 

[steveintoronto]

That idea of the bridge over to the Railpath / Perth-Sterling would be a very important component in making this happen. If you can get people from the Junction Triangle to walk/bike over to Loblaws / jobs / other retail here, you can save on much of the driving into the site. Same with having a shorter walk from Bloor GO/UP (which would also be future east entrance for Dundas West TTC). Even Castlepoint were looking into making this connection happen back in the earlier days of their Sterling Rd. proposals, but the cost of crossing the wide corridor and working with the railways became prohibitive. Maybe they'd still be willing to work something out, but with construction already happening along Perth/Railpath, maybe that will become more difficult now...

I know one of the Romano brothers well enough to discuss this with, and will. He's a pretty down-to-earth hands-on guy.

I spoke to an architect friend (a teaching prof) on this issue, in fact vic, are you interning at this time, as I've also put one of his interns onto this link, and it might be you! Here's what prof stated on my query as to whether the bulk of the parking to unit/tenant ratio is in the Planning Act or with the Municipality, and his answer was nebulous: (gist) "any ratio nowdays is very elastic, it's more the developer pressing it than the City". Hearsay isn't good enough, so later I'll try and give reference/link to that.

especially if the BOLD comes from being exceptionally progressive with car-free / car-light development.

It is incredibly opportune for 'people that can walk or ride' to such an extent that I wonder if that shouldn't be the emphasis that the developer pitches it to the City with, and perhaps get an even higher density by doing so. Make it a showcase.

How's this for a pie-in-the sky idea: build an underground pedestrian connection to Dundas West Station underneath Bloor, then add a new streetcar loop above, near the southeast corner of Bloor/Dundas. Route streetcars into the site at a new controlled intersection between Bloor and Boustead. Now the 504 and 505 can avoid the congested Bloor/Dundas intersection and the difficult left turn into Dundas West Station, improving reliability and speed. Transit connectivity to this development improves, reducing traffic impacts. And the new loop could be built to accommodate the new streetcars, which are not well served by the current loops at Dundas West.

Know what? First read, I thought that was pie in the sky, but reading it through a number of times, I'm completely sold on it. It also solves the "Crossways" enigma: How to tie Bloor station to Bloor West platforms through the basement of Crossways. It solves a lot of things, not least the awful intersection of Bloor and Dundas.

Let me get back to you on that with some more details later, that's almost worth of a string of its own, including tying in Landsdowne station.

Replacing the school, which seems to be on quite a constrained site, would seem like a good idea, but where in the vicinity would create a better outcome?...There are not a lot of sites visibly underused in the vicinity with the exception of Lansdowne Yard, which given its history of contamination issues might not be a popular choice.

I think there are options elsewhere, will dig on that, but perhaps this neutralize some of the imbalance:
" given its history of contamination issues "
Are you aware of the history of the present site? If soil samples were taken today, and I have no way of proving this, just intuition, remediation would be ordered before building, at least on the playing field. I'll attempt to elaborate on that later.

 

[steveintoronto]

Maybe they need an illuminated one like downtown.

I have a bird's eye view on it every day, and you know what? Many of the same cars do it every day, knowing it's illegal. Without consequence, many will keep doing it. Smably has proffered one of the few solutions to that.

 

[dowlingm]

I have a bird's eye view on it every day, and you know what? Many of the same cars do it every day, knowing it's illegal. Without consequence, many will keep doing it. Smably has proffered one of the few solutions to that.

Smably's solution seems an incredibly expensive hammer, the cost of which will be borne by the transit budget, to crack a nut of the Transportation Department and some vehicle drivers making. We can't get the Crossways connection done, but this we can? There are red light cameras shown in the streetview - let's mount a left turn camera on top of the streetcar shelter.

The decision to locate the subway on the north side of Bloor-Danforth has done quite a bit to screw the operating efficiency of streetcars at many points along the network, to be sure, in addition to connections like Main TTC-Danforth GO.

 

[steveintoronto]

Smably's solution seems an incredibly expensive hammer, the cost of which will be borne by the transit budget, to crack a nut of the Transportation Department and some vehicle drivers making.

Not if you look at the big plan, which is what a number of posters are. As part of the entire Dundas West region? Very little will stand after massive redevelopment, Crossways being one of the few, and one, btw, that refuses to budge on allowing GO Bloor to Dundas West TTC access through their basement. I've asked the Creccals. Twice. (In all due respect, there might be negotiations continuing behind the scenes, but they have severe poker face on it)

And yes, what Smably proffers is a very expensive solution. And quite possibly unavoidable in some form or other.

Edit to Add: To take one aspect of Smably's plan further: Streetcars enter from tunnel mid Dundas south of Bloor and loop underground @2280 development a la St Clair or Spadina/Bloor.

Or into tunnel south of Bloor, and loop underground at the present Dundas West Station site when it comes up for inclusion in the NW corner of Bloor/Dundas redevelopment. At that time, pedestrian tunnels would be included too.

 

[steveintoronto]

Large amounts of detail and analysis here:
http://toronto.uli.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/53/2016/11/5-ChoiceReitPres_Final-for-ULI.pdf
https://www1.toronto.ca/city_of_tor...nning/files/pdf/bloordundas_final_rep_pt5.pdf
https://www1.toronto.ca/city_of_tor...ning/files/pdf/bloordundas_final_rep_full.pdf
https://www.insidetoronto.com/commu...e-for-loblaws-and-lcbo-on-dundas-street-west/

 

[interchange42]

Steve, in regards to parking: yes, there is a formula that the City applies to developments, based on the number of bedrooms, for how many parking spaces are required. That requirement, however, is routinely the subject of zoning bylaw amendments these days, and ever more so the closer the development is to Downtown or to transit. Developers are recognizing that fewer people are purchasing parking spaces than ever (leaving developers with unsold spaces), and the City sees it too. It has not amended its formula in response, but it regularly allows zoning amendments for fewer spaces now. Just how many depends on several factors, with proximity to rapid transit, or the sheer walkability of downtown locations, being the greater factors in allowing the exemptions.

42

 

[steveintoronto]

Developers are recognizing that fewer people are purchasing parking spaces than ever (leaving developers with unsold spaces), and the City sees it too.

This is a crucial point, and I think many if not most of the posters would agree that it alters the 'acceptability' of the development considering the degree to which it is otherwise limited in terms of vehicular access. Some of the reports linked are dated, but allude to the 'projected acceptable increase in density' (my term) as of the date of the report. In the ten years since then, I proffer that can and or could change upwards, access factors permitting. It's something the developer (who touts their enviro-friendly projects) might wish to emphasize even more in their application. It's certainly a point I will bring up with any and all concerned in the development end, Perks included. Going by this forum's response, it could make or break community acceptance. The sector of the community that is vocal on these matters in the Roncy neighbourhood is very alt transport friendly. The older ethnic ones not so much, but even there, they treasure the fact that Roncy retains it's character, and this effectively is 'Roncy North'.

It has not amended its formula in response, but it regularly allows zoning amendments for fewer spaces now. Just how many depends on several factors, with proximity to rapid transit, or the sheer walkability of downtown locations, being the greater factors in allowing the exemptions.

That's the 'elasticity' factor that intrigues me. How far that can be stretched before snapping is the question? I think the developer might be very wise to place even more emphasis on how this can be a model demonstrating exactly that point, and that should go over well with all regulating agencies involved. Developer may in fact flip this over, and ask Planning: "How far can this go, and if we go further than anyone else this size has, do you have our backs on this?"

Dare I stretch the elastic this far? Developer: "We are now bringing our proposal not just up to today's expected metric for being pedestrian and alt transport friendly, but we want to aim for *tomorrow's* metric. We want to lead change."

I can't think of any better PR possible, not only to get City Council and Planning on-side, but also tenants, and a welcoming neighbourhood.

Is that manic? Perhaps. I am a neighbour, and I look at Mirvish's project (ex-Honest Ed's) with envy, as it has already tapped into the new zeitgeist of City planning aspirations. I'll keep digging on this, and see what I can find and post it, but any more hints or references on density and enviro-friendly policies most welcome. I'm not doing this from being a 'Green Snowflake', but a reassertion of the way it was done generations ago in Europe, and is being re-established yet again in Norway, Holland, Denmark and other progressive nations. It builds better cities!

Btw, pg 36, (pdf pg 4) https://www1.toronto.ca/city_of_tor...nning/files/pdf/bloordundas_final_rep_pt5.pdf

RE: Crossways. That's fascinating reading as per (gist) "what not to do". Something not mentioned, and ostensibly remiss forty plus years ago for such approvals, is wind tunnel testing.

I can tell you that a recent storm that did some damage elsewhere in the city actually blew out the ground level entrance doors on one of the two towers, and severely damaged them on the other. In all fairness, these were of the supermarket type, not quality built engineering grade. If one wished to build a wind turbine, the aperture between the two towers couldn't be much more optimal to present a focused stream onto turbine blades.

With other high-rise developments in proximity to The Crossways, air flow studies will be necessary more than the norm.