I didn't say the two plans were the same. But they are quite similar in their footprints.
The biggest differences, as
@Northern Light
I didn't say the two plans were the same. But now that
@Northern Light has articulated the differences: Do people think the building footprints in the city/DTAH urban design makes sense? Front Street is already a wide ROW, and the plan would create two new public squares on the corners of Front/Berkeley and Front/Parliament. Given their middling scale and weak adjacencies, these seem really questionable to me.
Obviously the heights, density, program and park size will all be contentious. But are there actually good design reasons to keep the building footprints as the city wants them?
In terms of Front Street, clearly the current sidewalk space is wholly inadequate, on both sides of the road.
In respect of the north side sidewalk, one has to know the proposed setbacks on that side of the street to understand whether that portion is adequate.
The southern side also has a demonstrably under-sized sidewalk. The question here is two-fold, what size sidewalk is desirable, and can/will any space be re-allocated from traffic lanes?
If the answer is no, then you certainly require a pretty substantial setback.
Sidewalks here will have to support pedestrian volumes associated with an Ontario Line Station, the Distillery District, a large district/regional library, a would-be tourist site (interpretive centre), in addition to whatever residential density is established on-site, and on the Staples site as well.
****
Now let's look at the Parliament side:
Again, the base sidewalk is obviously unacceptable in appearance and functional width. Both proposals would seek to widen it, the question is one of how much.
On all three sides of the site, in the provincial proposal, you see the trees sited right next to the curb. If going with with a single row of trees this is poor siting.
The trees will have much greater salt spray in that location and would ideally be situated mid-sidewalk in a planting bed.
A double-row of trees is workable, including curbside, in the slightly wider proposal, but here to, if trees are going to be curbside they need high soil volumes, silva cells, at least some distance (10cm in from the curb).
It's difficult to imagine that fitting in the Provincial proposal.
Of course, these are crude renders, not working drawings and we can't see the exact proposed widths.
But with a site that has a 90M cross-section, a fairly narrow building will have a 20M cross-section I would think, that's 40M for 2 buildings.
If you want to deliver a wide sidewalk comparable to Bloor say, you're looking at about 10M per side. (the widest sidewalks in the West Don Lands are 20M wide, which, admittedly, may be overkill)
Assuming you spaced the central area with interpretation at 25M you're pretty much done; there's not a lot of wiggle room left.
Also important to consider if you would like patios to be accommodated here. Successful ones will need at least 3M from any building (so 6M if you want them on the Parliament and Berkley frontages)
*****
Actually, the City's Great Streets Plan provides some good conceptual renders:
Parliament (at front):
But let's look at another, where the parkland is not extended, and the streetscape more urban and adjacent to a tall building:
These renders can be found here:
https://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2018/pg/bgrd/backgroundfile-114384.pdf
***
This is rather fanciful idea from 'Great Streets' about Front, but illustrates what could be done with a wide space.
From:
https://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2018/pg/bgrd/backgroundfile-114386.pdf
