...
20121103064-30-ordnance.jpg
 
Those little townhouses now look so out of place in that photo. The transition is just too abrupt. They should have been 8 to 12 story midrises.
 
Torontovibe said:
Those little townhouses now look so out of place in that photo. The transition is just too abrupt. They should have been 8 to 12 story midrises.
Click to expand...

I totally agree. Liberty Village should have dispersed the townhouses much better to create a more urban and integrated neighbourhood. It's way to segregated right now. All of the townhouses clustered in on corner of the development while monsterous slab condos line the rest of the area. Retail is too concentrated to one area in a sort of suburban strip mall configuration.
Meanwhile there is only one way in and out at either ends of this area, creating a traffic nightmare. I have heard people stuck in their parking garage trying to get out during rush hour.
There is a definitely a lack of proper masterplanning of LV. It's pretty much a piecemeal of really bad parts.
 
fedplanner said:
These towers appear to be in addition to the 32 and 27 floor towers announced in the first report. A little confusing. I'm thinking there is also another thread discussing this development, but I'm unable to locate it.
Click to expand...

Yes, these are in addition to the towers that you refer you, and for which AG has referenced the thread. That's an adjacent proposal.

42
 
Went to the presentation last night and it seems the crowd mostly played right into the developer's hands. The bait was a possible pool in the park that is on the eastern portion of the site near the pedestrian/cycle bridge (with no real insight as to whether the city is on board since it is, after all, a public park and pools can be pricey) and many of the questions disregarded the serious implications of this development and focused on the pool and the bridge.

Issue #1
The entire triangle has been zoned for employment. 100% of it until these developers showed up. While I concede that there isn't much going on there, there's no reason why the future shouldn't be different. With access to 2 streetcar lines, the Ossington bus, GO station and possible DRL subway stop in the future, King & Strachan/Liberty Village can be a viable location for some commercial development which the east side of Liberty Village desperately needs. So the developer is proposing turning a 100% employment area into about a 90% residential area with the usual 1-2 levels of commercial at grade (read a dry cleaner, hasty market and if we're lucky a Tim Hortons). With all the residential development in Liberty, with only more coming, we can hardly afford to transform employment land into yet more residential.

Issue #2
Of the 1109 proposed units in these 3 buildings, 876 are 1 bedroom, with the remainder being 2 bedroom. Absolutely no 3 bedroom units at this time. I found it quite comical that the developers touted the park and hopeful swimming pool as a makeshift backyard to the families that will live on Ordnance street in the future. Not real families of course, just imaginary ones.

I'm all for developing this parcel of land, but I do not think such a drastic change to the zoning should be permitted. All we've done in and around downtown is convert non-residential into residential, especially in Liberty Village. 100% employment converting to 90% residential is a little too much. I think a more balance approach is necessary. Maybe delete a tower or 2 from the 5 in total they want here and leave that land for future commericial development. I personally think it should be the 49 storey one as it sits on what could be a prominent corner, and it is drastically out of context. The tallest building on Strachan at present is 10 storeys at most, at King/Strachan. A 49 storey would be far and away the tallest tower around there and would only set a precedent for the 2 towers proposed on the NW and SW corners of Strachan & East Liberty. Nothing in Liberty Village, to the best of my knowledge, is more than 35 storeys.

I think it's safe to say that most of Liberty Village, especially the eastern portion, is a missed opportunity at best and a catastrophe at worst. In my opinion this proposal, as is, will just be too much of the same.
 
milanista said:
I think it's safe to say that most of Liberty Village, especially the eastern portion, is a missed opportunity at best and a catastrophe at worst. In my opinion this proposal, as is, will just be too much of the same.
Click to expand...

Thanks for that milanista, I think the city just wants to concentrate on keeping the employment lands in the Liberty West District (Hanna Av. to Dufferin street and King to new street north of the rail corridor)...seems they want much of the same mediocre architecture ...oh well:(
 
Automation Gallery said:
Thanks for that milanista, I think the city just wants to concentrate on keeping the employment lands in the Liberty West District (Hanna Av. to Dufferin street and King to new street north of the rail corridor)...seems they want much of the same mediocre architecture ...oh well:(
Click to expand...

The city doesn't determine the architecture, the developer does.

And there is good reason to keep employment lands. The city needs a balance of zoning across neighbourhoods.
 
You're right, it does seem that way and councillor Layton mentioned that. But if we're converting these employment lands into residential, who's to say that won't happen in the west half of Liberty Village as well? That green p surface lot on Liberty between Atlantic and Hanna is prime employment land, and the perfect size for a mixed use, commercially focused building. But unfortunately it is also the perfect size for another condo as well and a developer might point to this change in zoning as precedent for the neighbourhood.

The western, employment focused half of Liberty Village is largely older, historical buildings (which I love) but leave commercial developers with less options for new proposals. The triangle in question here is essentially a blank slate, and already employment zoned as well. If I were a developer looking to locate around here, the triangle would likely be cheaper and I'd have more options as to the type of building I could contruct. Not every commercial developer is looking to incorporate a heritage structure into their development.
 
milanista said:
Of the 1109 proposed units in these 3 buildings, 876 are 1 bedroom, with the remainder being 2 bedroom. Absolutely no 3 bedroom units at this time.
Click to expand...

The absolute last thing this area needs is another development full of 1 bedroom units, with a spattering of 2 bedroom units for trust fund kids to have more space to store their toys. This area needs is more large, family-oriented units.
 
chriskayTO said:
The absolute last thing this area needs is another development full of 1 bedroom units, with a spattering of 2 bedroom units for trust fund kids to have more space to store their toys. This area needs is more large, family-oriented units.
Click to expand...

Let your opinion be heard by contacting Councillor Mike Layon and ask that additional 3 bedroom units be added to this development as a condition of approval. Ideally, this is something the zoning code should already contain.

The entire triangle has been zoned for employment. 100% of it until these developers showed up.
Click to expand...

Is separation of commercial and residential uses really the best thing for the city? It makes sense to separate industrial and residential uses, but if the lands will be for offices, retail, and other commercial uses, why not have mixed-uses rather than 100% commercial. ie strip mall or office park.

Also consider that the current zoning also allows industrial uses as of right. I wonder if the community would still be against the rezoning of this lands for residential development if the alternative was industry. It's manufacturing job right? One of the problems of enforcing zoning bylaws written in 1986 in a community that has rapidly changed.
 
I couldn't stay for the entire Q&A period. I remember hearing some kind of community amenity for the public is being considered, such as a YMCA, daycare centre, school, etc. This would be great for the area. Could this be considered as the employment component? What is considered employment lands?

I don't know if 49-stories is appropriate for the area, but I do like how these five towers look over the entire development. The varied heights from 23-stories to 49-stories with a decent amount of room between them feels nice. I hate to see the wall of banal slab buildings of Liberty Village continue eastward. It just looks so oppressive and sucks the life out of the street. I don't know how in the world these awful buildings got approved in the first place.

I'm tired of the typical tiny cookie-cutter units that developers are pushing everywhere. I really hope that there will be larger units, and I am not talking about 3-bedrooms stuffed in 750 sq.ft. I could imagine some amazing townhouse units near the park. I would pay a premium for a large unit with unobstructed views of the city and park.

I'm definitely sending my comments to Councillor Layton.
 
metroTO said:
I'm tired of the typical tiny cookie-cutter units that developers are pushing everywhere. I really hope that there will be larger units, and I am not talking about 3-bedrooms stuffed in 750 sq.ft. I could imagine some amazing townhouse units near the park. I would pay a premium for a large unit with unobstructed views of the city and park.
Click to expand...

I agree with you there. I know a few couples who have now have kids who are currently trying to find something a little larger that isn't a cookie cutter unit, that's not ridiculously priced.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top