Exactly.

It's too early to be concerned about what the City will or won't insist upon, because the initial plan won't reflect the City's interests yet.

42
 
I've seen the architectural drawing submitted withe the development application. There appears to be no plan to connect this development to the PATH. This can't be an oversight but it is nevertheless baffling. Why wouldn't they want a connection? Why wouldn't the city insist on it?
If Yonge Street is ever going to live up to its potential as an attractive pedestrian destination it will need all the surface foot traffic it can get. Diverting people to a parallel underground network seems contradictory to this outcome. Do we want Yonge and Gerrard to feel like King and Bay?
 
I don't get the insistence on the PATH thing myself. It's a rabbit warren down there. Not particularly pleasant for the most part and it feels like several carbuncles glued together with spit and grease. Nice in the coldest months I suppose but as a coherent and efficient people mover I don't see the allure.
 
The City, however, wants it as the sidewalks are getting more and more crowded, and the thousands of new residents that these projects will bring will only increase the pressures on the pedestrian infrastructure. The City also wants the weather-protected network there so that on bad days people will have the option to avoid the weather. It becomes a competitive advantage in selling Toronto as a good place to live and work, etc., etc. Much of the older stretches of PATH are a bit confusing as they have had to be added into basements after-the-fact, and I admit that some new stretches like the bit under Aura only pay lip service to the concept, but a properly planned section should work the way the City wants it to, as a viable, attractive alternative to crowded sidewalks. A good question though is whether or not the City can demand something better than what we got at Aura.

Meanwhile, no one is compelled to take the whichever bit of PATH if they don't want to, but on some days it will seem like a more attractive option than others.

42
 
The sidewalks are definitely overcrowded in the area, which is densifying with or without this project. Widening the sidewalks on Yonge will be useful, but it will not be nearly enough. I walk every day from Bay and College to Yonge and Adelaide, and when the weather is unpleasant I often enter the Path at the Atrium. Without it, I would probably use the subway more often, and bypass Yonge St. businesses anyway.
 
when the weather is unpleasant I often enter the Path at the Atrium. Without it, I would probably use the subway
Exactly -- as I use it, the PATH is far more about pedestrian travel than an underground mall.
 
Sorry, you are confusing this with 43 Gerrard Street West.

42
 
This one will change significantly before final approval. The tower setup currently proposed is simply too much, something will need to change.
 

Back
Top