junctionist said:
Toronto has plenty of medium-density neighbourhoods with thriving retail areas like Riverdale, the Junction, and the Danforth. Yet a high-density neighbourhood like this one can't have that? It doesn't make sense at first glance.

I'd guess the issue is that the area doesn't have the parameters large corporate retailers look for (e.g. parking, foot traffic, busy through streets, rapid transit). Yet it isn't competitive for small businesses and start ups due to the high cost of newly built retail spaces and likely overly conservative and selective condo boards. So it's hard to get the retail scene going.
Click to expand...

This area will support retail just fine.

It's far from complete, the density isn't nearly there yet.

Additionally, as I noted above, the area functions as a bit of an island, removed from any adjacent community.

That will change as the build-out progresses.
 
Northern Light said:
In terms of planned build out; what was planned as far as 2021 would have put Regent Park at something like 8,000 per km2 * (includes the park and aquatic centre) , which is relatively low density in comparison to West Don Lands.

The revised plans for Regent Park phase 4 and 5 will boost that some.

In the end, I expect the full build out will be ~10,000per km2 inclusive of the park space, probably 12,000+ if you exclude that.

****

However, a fair comparison would note that Regent Park started with 8,000 or so residents, whereas the WDL started with 0.

Regent Park is also more tied into adjacent areas, where WDL was a bit of an island, with Richmond/Eastern ramp system cutting it off from the north, and the gap initially between most of the early phase WDL and the Distillery to the west. (with the Don Valley to the east and no crossing between King and Lake Shore for pedestrians)
Click to expand...
Sorry, but I am not sure where you got the 8000/km2 number from. The neighbourhood profile on the City of Toronto website says there are currently 10,803 residents (2016) and the density is 16,880/km2. It includes to the Don, but that is mostly car dealerships and light industrial.
 
MOB said:
Sorry, but I am not sure where you got the 8000/km2 number from. The neighbourhood profile on the City of Toronto website says there are currently 10,803 residents (2016) and the density is 16,880/km2. It includes to the Don, but that is mostly car dealerships and light industrial.
Click to expand...
I wouldn't rely on 2016 numbers as there has been a lot of development since then.
 
rdaner said:
I wouldn't rely on 2016 numbers as there has been a lot of development since then.
Click to expand...
That's what I mean.... 8000/km2 is definitely not an accurate number and the density will increase with Broccolini's developments, the original Regent Park Revitalization increased density and the new increased density under Tridel
 
MOB said:
Sorry, but I am not sure where you got the 8000/km2 number from. The neighbourhood profile on the City of Toronto website says there are currently 10,803 residents (2016) and the density is 16,880/km2. It includes to the Don, but that is mostly car dealerships and light industrial.
Click to expand...

Quite right, my bad, I used google to measure the land area, with the same population as you have; but I didn't notice that it failed to put the area in km2 at the bottom as I'm used to, instead measuring the perimeter.

That said, my point does stand that it's not as dense as what's proposed for the West Don Lands:

Using the same formula of 1.82 residents per unit, x 6,000 residential units, you get 11,000 residents in the WDL
They are spread over 32 hectares which is 0.32km2
That gives a population density for the WDL of 34,000 residents per km2....
 
Last edited:
Northern Light said:
This area will support retail just fine.

Its far from complete, the density isn't nearly there yet.

Additionally, as I noted above, the area functions as a bit of an island, removed from any adjacent community.

That will change as the build-out progresses.
Click to expand...

I agree that over time, it should be fine. But just adding more density doesn't address the issues I raised on its own. There's no main street with a lot of through traffic, and all the buildings are new and have higher rents than older buildings. Those two factors make it harder to attract both corporate chains and mom and pops.

It's currently missing something that Jane Jacobs noted is important to vitality: older buildings. Older buildings typically have lower rents and less selective commercial landlords, making them ideal for good-quality small businesses. We have them in spades in the Junction. Trendy small businesses draw people from elsewhere, which helps with a retail area's overall vitality.

I shop at the independent stores in the Junction. But they also draw people from around the city. They're also plenty of through traffic, so people can see the stores from buses and cars. As such, the pedestrian-oriented retail area with little parking is bustling. It isn't just a factor of density.
 
As far as the area not having a Main or High street I find that Front Street East is functioning very well as the primary route suitable for retail. The selection of a retail space on it for a grocery store proves that. Also give Cherry some time as it is about to become the primary route between the eastern part of downtown and The Portlands. Have faith! Also I can guarantee you that Shoppers is going to move into one of the ground floor units along Front!
 
There will eventually be a block the same as the one at Queen and Logan. Starbucks, A&W, Osmow's, Freshii, pot store, Pet Valu. All stuff that is nice to have close at hand but doesn't exactly make a neighbourhood.
 
evandyk said:
There will eventually be a block the same as the one at Queen and Logan. Starbucks, A&W, Osmow's, Freshii, pot store, Pet Valu. All stuff that is nice to have close at hand but doesn't exactly make a neighbourhood.
Click to expand...
I kinda laugh when I see that Canary has a Fika, and the Distillery has a Fika. Like, do the George Brown Dorms require their own supply?
 
At the risk of taking this thread off topic once again, this CensusMapper map reminded me of some of the recent density discussions here.

From the map description:
In a passage of Death and Life of Great American Cities (pages 208-212), Jane Jacobs lays out several thresholds for density, claiming that certain units per acre correspond to varying levels of urban viability.

She describes 6 Units Per Acre or less as "Very low densities" that "can make out well in suburbs." 10-20 units per acre is described as "Semisuburb", and supposes that they are "designed to become a grey area". She describes 20-100 units per acre as the "in-between" densities, "fit, generally, for nothing but trouble", leaving proper urban densities producing diversity and amenity at greater than 100 units per acre.

This hard to reckon with on-the-ground densities in Canadian cities. In Vancouver, only a single census tract (near Joyce Station) fits that description. Under this taxonomy, all of downtown Vancouver would be described as "nothing but trouble", and vibrant neighbourhoods like Commercial Drive are far from it.

Hardly any of Toronto or Montreal fit this description either

It's been suggested that Jacobs revised this view after she moved from New York into a street-car suburban area of Toronto, which would seem to be born out.
Click to expand...

Screenshot of the map below for the click-averse (red indicates areas with >100 dwelling units per acre, or roughly 25,000 per square kilometre):
Screenshot 2023-12-04 at 5.55.13 PM.png


Posting this more as an interesting historical tidbit than anything else, though I would love to see an equivalent density map for Manhattan.
 
The other thing I kinda marvel at, is that when you look at Cherry House 1&2 (I’m calling it that, change my mind) next to 70 & 80 Mill st - it’s about to equal their 12 storeys by its 6th floor. Which I scratch my head about, cuz even if you chopped the height of the ground level retail- Cherry House’s 13 floors are going to tower over the Mill St. ones- no?

IMG_2269.jpeg
 
rdaner said:
As far as the area not having a Main or High street I find that Front Street East is functioning very well as the primary route suitable for retail. The selection of a retail space on it for a grocery store proves that. Also give Cherry some time as it is about to become the primary route between the eastern part of downtown and The Portlands. Have faith! Also I can guarantee you that Shoppers is going to move into one of the ground floor units along Front!
Click to expand...

Before Queen & Parliament moved, Canary was 1km between each of the nearest Shoppers. And apart from The No Frills, it’s a pharmacy desert. Given that 1. Canary was supposed to be the ‘health district’ 2. There’s going to be a seniors centre and indigenous health facility 3. Vaccinations seem to be going to private pharmacies these days - it feels like a necessity. Shame that with a prospective pharmacy and post office here they’ll likely cannibalize Marcheleo’s grocery business.
 
Wow, thanks everyone for all the current and future information! Looks like from a collective neighbourhood perspective, density is being built at a level suitable for the new subway station and the existing trams lines. Regardless, 10+ floors over an entire block here is very dense if you compare to a dense European city like Paris, where 6 floors are the norm.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top