Northern Light said:
I'm fascinated that in the example you chose to cite, you're missing all the sun coming through the trees and lighting up and nourishing the tree canopy.
Click to expand...

More density dosent nessessarily mean complete loss of sunlight.

Developers can incorporate courtyards and publically accesible parks within retail podiums . In some cases , as high as 10 stories abovd ground level. There are many examples of this in Asia
 
xy3 said:
More density dosent nessessarily mean complete loss of sunlight.

Developers can incorporate courtyards and publically accesible parks within retail podiums . In some cases , as high as 10 stories abovd ground level. There are many examples of this in Asia
Click to expand...

When did I become an opponent of density? Come on, now.

I never suggested that we can't have tall buildings in the City, and this particular site is already zoned for tall buildings, the developer has chosen to return seeking even greater height.

The idea that nothing is sacred and everything must be sacrificed to maximum height and density on every single site is simply something I see as unreasonable and unsupportable.

Everything in moderation, nuance is a good word.
 
Greater density in exchange for a publically accesible courtyard park within the retail podium seems like a reasonable trade off to me. But the city generally dosent think outside the box.
 
xy3 said:
Greater density in exchange for a publically accesible courtyard park within the retail podium seems like a reasonable trade off to me. But the city generally dosent think outside the box.
Click to expand...

What courtyard? There is no courtyard in this proposal.

This is the ground floor plan:

1722096567230.png


Where do you imagine fitting this courtyard? You can't remove the loading, or the parking ramp or the lobbies. Even if you could partially shift the lobbies to a second floor it wouldn't create usable park space underneath. Parks also doesn't accept (nor should it) strata parks (meaning over underground parking), as it would have to scrape all the park away every 25-35 years when the garage membrane needed work.

*****

How does creating a small, pseudo-private space, too small for any programming offset deteriorating conditions in a park that already exists?
 
Last edited:
This one is before Council in the form of a Member Motion directing staff to pursue/accept an on-site parkland dedication.

Agenda Item History 2024.MM22.23

Agenda Item History 2024.MM22.23
secure.toronto.ca

Let me be PE level blunt............. what an incredibly stupid idea!

A park that's only slightly larger than a McMansion lot............... 0.05ha or about 1/9th of an acre. You must be kidding! Hello, Eglinton Park is just a couple blocks away and is proposed for expansion.........there's a better idea here.
 
City Halls park obsession is only putting a higher premium on land values. There is also a proposed park at the Oxford redevelopment just steps away from this. If 30% of every block of redevelopment has to be dedicated to a park on ground level , thats going to be yet another factor , in addition to shadowing and height restrictions, that severely restricts new supply of units.

And the attitude with designing new parks seems to be "any parks a good park" and very open/exposed to big busy roads with lots of hardscape and as little foliage as possible.
 
Last edited:
Northern Light said:
This one is before Council in the form of a Member Motion directing staff to pursue/accept an on-site parkland dedication.

Agenda Item History 2024.MM22.23

Agenda Item History 2024.MM22.23
secure.toronto.ca

Let me be PE level blunt............. what an incredibly stupid idea!

A park that's only slightly larger than a McMansion lot............... 0.05ha or about 1/9th of an acre. You must be kidding! Hello, Eglinton Park is just a couple blocks away and is proposed for expansion.........there's a better idea here.
Click to expand...
Are they nuts? Serious question.

Unfortunately it looks like this will get passed also, which would be a highly idiotic move by council.
 
The parkland dedication is dumb but, it's an easy compromise for the developer and city. An offsite dedication of any stature with the going rate of a 50 storey price tag will take contributions from many, many developments. It's a logistic nightmare. Yonge Eglinton is exploding with dense skyscrapers on lot hugging podiums which are a far cry from the slabs in park(ing lots) Any open space including one the size of a monster home in this timeline will be welcomed.

Traffic Island or French Quarters caged bench contribute some needed green to the concrete
www.google.ca

Street View · Google Maps

Explore a place in a more immersive way in Google Maps.
www.google.ca www.google.ca
 
This one was back at Council this month, along the proposed development on Henning.

This report to Council covers both developments.

@Paclo will sort that out for database and thread pin purposes.

In the meantime, there's quite the jumble of stuff here..... lets start with the Settlement Offer:


From the above:

1732542049384.png

1732542077471.png

1732542098466.png

1732542133089.png

1732542161331.png


(some material omitted for space, follow the link)

1732542216766.png


(further omission)

1732542252458.png

1732542280140.png


1732542300149.png

1732542325896.png



And more......

Revised Site Plan:

1732542460902.png


Revised Ground Floor Plan:

1732542516996.png




No new renders included.
 
Last edited:
This is the off-site parkand dedication here:

1732543285080.png


@ProjectEnd previously shared the assembly for park purposes going on here, I wonder if he could confirm how many additional properties here are assembled?
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top