An oversimplification, Alex missed some key details.
View attachment 356885

Have a look at the setback on Front, its vastly larger in the City Plan as part of achieving a 'Great Street'
Likewise, Look at Parliament, the City Plan calls for a double-row of trees and a 'Great Street' streetscape; the Provincial plan does not.
The open space between the 2 buildings is larger in the City Plan. The overall footprint of the buildings is larger in the Provincial Plan.

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?
 
Last edited:
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.

1634924799452.png


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:

1634925236249.png


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):

1634926623418.png


But let's look at another, where the parkland is not extended, and the streetscape more urban and adjacent to a tall building:

1634926684404.png


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.

1634927099466.png


From: https://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2018/pg/bgrd/backgroundfile-114386.pdf
 
Last edited:
The West Don Lands sidewalks are clearly overkill. They are way too wide. In a few places, the width is good to give you a splash pad and patios, but for the most part it deadens the street life.
 
The West Don Lands sidewalks are clearly overkill. They are way too wide. In a few places, the width is good to give you a splash pad and patios, but for the most part it deadens the street life.

Right, but important to note there, no one is proposing sidewalks that wide.

A 20M sidewalk on each side would be just shy of 1/2 the site, add a public space in the middle, and you hardly shoehorn in any buildings.
 
How are pedestrians going to use the space? It always seemed pedestrians got to the distillery district via King and down Parliament, or via the Esplanade. Do people come via Front?

Both plans are fine from pedestrian view via the Esplanade with the park. The provincial plan seems to have a longer streetwall on Parliament, presumably with retail. This feels more appealing, although would love to have that double row of trees. I imagine a double row still is possible, something like what is in front of Murano on Bay Street.
 
How are pedestrians going to use the space? It always seemed pedestrians got to the distillery district via King and down Parliament, or via the Esplanade. Do people come via Front?

Both plans are fine from pedestrian view via the Esplanade with the park. The provincial plan seems to have a longer streetwall on Parliament, presumably with retail. This feels more appealing, although would love to have that double row of trees. I imagine a double row still is possible, something like what is in front of Murano on Bay Street.
There's certainly people walking along Front, especially since it's a walkable distance to St Lawrence Market. That said, the current tiny sidewalks do not encourage people to walk along Front St, as there's already too many people for the size of the sidewalks.
 
There's certainly people walking along Front, especially since it's a walkable distance to St Lawrence Market. That said, the current tiny sidewalks do not encourage people to walk along Front St, as there's already too many people for the size of the sidewalks.
The City are currently studying how to widen the sidewalks on Front from George Street to Parliament. Of course, the answer is to actually widen them by narrowing the street but that would cost $$ so I am not holding my breath on anything happening!
 
The City are currently studying how to widen the sidewalks on Front from George Street to Parliament. Of course, the answer is to actually widen them by narrowing the street but that would cost $$ so I am not holding my breath on anything happening!

Is the Scott to Church block not being looked at? I had understood this to be the case; that they were looking at removing the curb lane next to the retail to create patio space.

That's where they need to start, to me, the case is so compelling there; it would also match the eventual removal of the one lane on Wellington, which then sets the stage for a road diet further east.
 
Is the Scott to Church block not being looked at? I had understood this to be the case; that they were looking at removing the curb lane next to the retail to create patio space.

That's where they need to start, to me, the case is so compelling there; it would also match the eventual removal of the one lane on Wellington, which then sets the stage for a road diet further east.
I think the study of Front east of George came up at the King-Parliament Secondary Plan discussions so the (good) idea to look at Scott to Church would not be part of that study as it is outside the K-P boundary.
 
From Wong-Tam mailer:

Yesterday, the Executive Committee adopted two important sets of recommendations regarding the First Parliament site including the long-awaited First Parliament Master Plan and the staff report explaining the Expropriation of Land by Metrolinx and the Province of Ontario. The reports formally respond to the many motions that I have moved regarding the First Parliament site and the Provincial expropriation of city-owned land for Infrastructure Ontario's oversized "transit-oriented development" and the construction staging area for the building of the Ontario Line's Corktown station.

I want to extend my deepest thanks to the community leaders and residents who deputed at the meeting, including representatives from the West Don Lands Committee, the Gooderham & Worts Neighbourhood Association, St Lawrence Neighbourhood Association, Corktown Residents and Business Association and the city-led First Parliament Working Group. We heard about the critical importance of local planning and the need to honour the years of hard work assembling these public lands and robust consultation that went into the creation of the First Parliament Master Plan. I echo and fully support the community concerns expressed about the necessity of a significant public park, affordable housing, heritage interpretation and commemoration as well as a new district public library. I will continue to champion the First Parliament principles contained in the Master Plan which are critical to building inclusive and complete communities.

Given the aggressive timeline of the Province's expropriation process and the pending loss of valuable, public land, we need to be visionary and demand something beautiful, equitable, community-led and worthy of this nationally significant historic site. I would like to reiterate what I said at the Executive Committee - that the community and I are not asking for new park space from Infrastructure Ontario - we are asking the Province to return the City-owned and designated parkland they took out of the Master Plan.

City Council needs to be made aware of the gross overreach of Premier Ford. How he is delivering the gift of valuable downtown real estate to his donors and developer friends; and the exorbitant powers he has bestowed on his Ministers to interfere in local planning.

The community and I are not opposed to new density. We welcome new development so long as it respects local planning and in this case the Master Plan that has been years in the making.

It is my hope that in the next two weeks, City Council will formally endorse the First Parliament Master Plan, and consequently the guiding principles for negotiations with Metrolinx, Infrastructure Ontario, and the Province. I expect Infrastructure Ontario to submit their revised development proposal in November and at that time, we will see how truly collaborative they are willing to be. Until then, our most recent victory is still worth celebrating!
 

Toronto residents fight for changes to plan to build Ontario Line station on historic downtown site


Oct 29, 2021

Downtown Toronto community groups are fighting to reinstate plans for a library and a park that are 20 years in the making at the historic First Parliament Site — all threatened when the province swiftly expropriated the city-owned land in August.

The provincial agency in charge of regional transit in Greater Toronto, Metrolinx, will use the full block at Front Street East and Parliament Street for a subway station and has suggested the rest be developed into condo towers. As the property's owner, it now has full control over the site where the province's first legislature stood, and how it is used.

Its proposal is "aggressive" and would "obliterate" the city and community's vision for much-needed public space, including an interpretive centre to recognize its cultural and historical significance, Cynthia Wilkey, West Don Lands Committee co-chair, told Mayor John Tory's executive committee Wednesday.

She's among the residents who've joined city staff in negotiations with the province in hopes of finding a compromise.

"We saw this proposal as entirely inconsistent with the city's intention to create a civic and commemorative entity," Wilkey said. "The response from our community has run the gamut of shock, anger, outrage, concern, investigation, analysis and finally proposition and some measure of optimism."

She said so far in negotiations with the province, residents and city staff made progress in reducing the proposed density by about 20 per cent to make more room for green space.

 

Toronto residents fight for changes to plan to build Ontario Line station on historic downtown site


Oct 29, 2021



While it is true that local groups, Wong-Tam and the City are still hoping to see the FP site properly developed and that most, if not all, the ideas in the City's Master Plan are included, this is really not a very good CBC report.
 
The West Don Lands sidewalks are clearly overkill. They are way too wide. In a few places, the width is good to give you a splash pad and patios, but for the most part it deadens the street life.
I disagree completely based on what I have experienced living in the area.
People use the wide sidewalks. Kids play on them. They are quite busy ( in relative terms for an area that is still being built ). And they feel very lively.
 

Back
Top