[Northern Light]

Except for the two dead trees in the front

Ratio wise, if they all went in about the same time..........that's not too bad......

Looks like 12/14 are healthy or about 85%.

That said, the aesthetic of one dead, and one not far off in front isn't ideal.

 

[Northern Light]

You should see all the dead trees along Cherry St. south of Mill St. and at Distillery loop !

The trees in/around Distillery Loop are a function of bad design.

The openings around the trees are too small, which limits water intake.

But there's something else............if the 'walking' surface comes right up to the tree...........salt (in winter) is going to be an issue.

It's unfortunate, I see the effect the landscape architect was going for; and the brick looks nice.

It's just a failure to understand how the space will be maintained and/or what the trees can abide.

Those make me sad too. I’m incredibly upset at the state of funding and management of Toronto Parks.

While I share your concerns about funding; I'm unclear whether nominal responsibility for this space rests with Parks.

It may.........but I'm not sure.

It would be good to clarify.

The medians/sidewalks on Cherry are nominally Transportation; though Parks would be charged with maintaining/replacing any trees.

But I'm less clear on how a TTC Loop works.

(Stations are not maintained by Parks so far as I'm aware).

 

[junctionist]

I'm pretty sure it's more to do with lack of funding than the commuting habits of our city workers.

If they weren't so indifferent, they'd find sources of funding. But the lifestyle issues I described go beyond city workers and affect many city residents too.

 

[UtakataNoAnnex]

If they weren't so indifferent, they'd find sources of funding. But the lifestyle issues I described go beyond city workers and affect many city residents too.

This seems to be based on speculation as opposed to actuals though. And misdirects the issue of funding to one of assumed character. But in the end, it only serves to keep us in the state of poor funding while we await for The City to magically smarten up somehow and everything will be okay. Not.

 

[junctionist]

This seems to be based on speculation as opposed to actuals though. And misdirects the issue of funding to one of assumed character. But in the end, it only serves to keep us in the state of poor funding while we await for The City to magically smarten up somehow and everything will be okay. Not.

It looks like a multifaceted problem to me. To simply say it's a funding issue oversimplifies an issue that's affected us for decades. There has to be more to it, including cultural factors, or it would have been addressed a long time ago. The amount of capital that this city generates is very high.

 

[UtakataNoAnnex]

Maybe so. But they need money to do this first.

 

[allengeorge]

An interesting thread by Shawn Micallef on the topic above:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1405915146770395138

It’s not just money: it’s also attitude.

 

[Benito]

Yesterday.

 

[Northern Light]

Time to revive this thread; for a new SPA? LOL

Yes indeed. No changes to building per se............

But some notable changes to the streetscape and its patios.

Application Details

www.toronto.ca

One Render:

The above is the Yorkville frontage, but the new canopy would wrap around along Bay.

Notable here is addition of many new street trees with high quality planting conditions:

This is the existing Streetview:

So you can see that along with some added trees, the existing in-ground trees are being swapped out for shared open planters with soil cells. The only unfortunate thing is that the soil volume is still a bit light. (only 21.5M3 per tree) I would really prefer to see more.

The lay-by on Yorkville is also being eliminated.

Trees will be Elms, supported by an understory of Yew and Feather Grass

 

[ADRM]

The Bay frontage here is one of the worst wind tunnels in the city; hopefully the trees (at least in the summer) help to mitigate that somewhat.

 

[ProjectEnd]

This first reared its head back in 2018, @Northern Light:

This came in to the Application Information Centre yesterday:



http://app.toronto.ca/DevelopmentAp...icationsList.do?action=init&folderRsn=1614093

 

[artyboy123]

Time to revive this thread; for a new SPA? LOL

Yes indeed. No changes to building per se............

But some notable changes to the streetscape and its patios.

Application Details

www.toronto.ca

One Render:

View attachment 520083

The above is the Yorkville frontage, but the new canopy would wrap around along Bay.

Notable here is addition of many new street trees with high quality planting conditions:

View attachment 520084


This is the existing Streetview:

View attachment 520085

So you can see that along with some added trees, the existing in-ground trees are being swapped out for shared open planters with soil cells. The only unfortunate thing is that the soil volume is still a bit light. (only 21.5M3 per tree) I would really prefer to see more.

The lay-by on Yorkville is also being eliminated.

View attachment 520087

Trees will be Elms, supported by an understory of Yew and Feather Grass

Site Plan Amendment application to further amend the previously approved Site Plan Amendment application for the site (File No. 18 203283 STE 27 SA) to permit a raised terrace and canopy at the southwest corner of the existing building along the southern portion of the west (Bay Street) façade and along a portion of the south (Yorkville Avenue) façade. This application would modify the previous approval to reduce the northern extent of the canopy and eliminate a ramp along Bay Street and expand the eastern extent of the terrace under the approved canopy along Yorkville Avenue.

 

[UtakataNoAnnex]

Er...I guess this will brighten up that soulless, oppressive corner.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Still a Foster/aA project as before.

AoD