[Molybdenum]

While you're right about Allen Road, this isn't true for the Gardiner. The Gardiner was built on Greenfield Land, freshly reclaimed land, and abandoned industrial land. The Gardiner did not involve demolishing any pre-existing neighbourhoods.

The entire South Parkdale neighbourhood was demolished for the Gardiner:

The lost streets of South Parkdale - Spacing Toronto

No Toronto neighbourhood paid for the Gardiner Expressway quite like Parkdale. Before construction of the lakefront highway in 1958, the land south of Springhurst Avenue and the rail tracks was just like the rest of Parkdale: residential, consisting of mostly detached homes on spacious lots. At...

spacing.ca

 

[Reecemartin]

This week, I got a really cool opportunity to visit the Davenport Diamond Grade Separation project onsite, and also got to talk to the project lead! Enjoy!

 

[Voltz]

Is there a design or plan for how a Multi-use trail along side the Barrie GO line would cross the Davenport Diamond to continue along side the GO line? I'm sure I've seen plans for trail along the Barrie Go line, but not sure about this specific area.

 

[vic]

Is there a design or plan for how a Multi-use trail along side the Barrie GO line would cross the Davenport Diamond to continue along side the GO line? I'm sure I've seen plans for trail along the Barrie Go line, but not sure about this specific area.

You can see part of that in the slides @Northern Light posted after the recent meeting about the Greenway (go back a few pages in this thread):

GO Transit: Davenport Diamond Grade Separation | ?m | ?s | Metrolinx

^ Maybe they'll time the first revenue service train for May 26, 2014 which I think was the first revenue service day for the West Toronto Grade Separation.

urbantoronto.ca

 

[concrete_and_light]

On the subject of meetings about the Greenway, there's an upcoming one tomorrow, Dec 13th: https://www.metrolinxengage.com/en/DavenportGreenway/Dec13

There's also more info in this PDF: https://www.metrolinxengage.com/sites/default/files/ddpr-presentation-2021-11-29.pdf

For me a big part of what I'm looking forward to in this project is increased connectivity in the area to either side of the tracks. One little fly in the ointment of this though is that there will, at least at this point, be no connectivity to the east at Antler St. which limits crossings of the tracks to either Dupont or Wallace which is unfortunate as a crossing at Antler could be quite useful for moving around the area. At the last meeting I was at about this they said this was an issue with the property owner on the east side. Currently there is only a parking lot there and it would be great if that could get opened up. At the meeting they said that property owners surrounding the Greenway may change their plans and take advantage of new opportunities once the trail exist and then open up new connections, but at this point there will be no access. Hopefully this property owner does open up a connection there, or perhaps they will choose to redevelop at some point and a redevelopment will include a connection. (IMO the Province or City should just expropriate a section of it for a path if the property owner doesn't want to play ball, but I guess they don't want to do that.)

Image from the above PDF:

Here where the potential connection point on the east side of the tracks could be if the property owner would allow it:

Hopefully there can be a solution here because not having a cycling/pedestrian connection at Antler in this perfect spot would be really unfortunate for those on either side of the tracks. Access to the Greenway and Campbell Park from the east would be great, and ability for everyone to travel west/east without having to go up to Dupont (which is more of a hostile busy route) or down to Wallace would be really useful.

 

[allengeorge]

(IMO the Province or City should just expropriate a section of it for a path if the property owner doesn't want to play ball, but I guess they don't want to do that.)

I am really surprised that the city isn’t expropriating; I wonder why. Perhaps, as you’ve suggested, they’re waiting until a redevelopment proposal to demand a connection.

 

[vic]

I am really surprised that the city isn’t expropriating; I wonder why. Perhaps, as you’ve suggested, they’re waiting until a redevelopment proposal to demand a connection.

My understanding is that there are two words for it: Ubisoft Parking. Nobody seems to want to offend them and their cars.

 

[vic]

Also, if the condo property just north of Antler could make a connection into the greenway, that would at least open up access from that area. it would be a big benefit to the residents there. Unfortunately, I can also imagine them not wanting to have non-residents cutting through their property.....

 

[concrete_and_light]

My understanding is that there are two words for it: Ubisoft Parking. Nobody seems to want to offend them and their cars.

That's Ubisoft parking all the way up there? It seems like this lot is connected to 80 Ward St., though maybe all these buildings are same ownership and Ubisoft people park up there too. Or maybe Ubisoft has offices in 80 Ward St. as well, I'm not sure.

There's another bigger parking lot as well in between Ubisoft's building and 80 Ward, which seems more likely to be Ubisoft parking to me. (And which could be another place in the future for a connection if one can't be established at Antler.)

The City and Metrolinx really should get this done one way or another. Antler and Lappin could be fully connected (not for car traffic since it isn't designed for that, but for cyclists and pedestrians) as well as connecting that whole area to the east directly to Campbell Park , and to lose out on that just for a sliver of private parking is very frustrating.

 

[smably]

Can't remember where I heard this, might have in this thread or during another public meeting, but I have a vague memory of someone from either Metrolinx or the city saying that they are in negotiations with a property owner for access to Lappin and that they are going well.

 

[ProjectEnd]

I am really surprised that the city isn’t expropriating; I wonder why. Perhaps, as you’ve suggested, they’re waiting until a redevelopment proposal to demand a connection.

There is no redevelopment happening here. It's E / Employment and unless folks want to take on OPA 231, it's just not worth the risk.

My understanding is that there are two words for it: Ubisoft Parking. Nobody seems to want to offend them and their cars.

Some of it is Ubisoft parking, the remainder is parking for the tenants of 80 Ward.

Also, if the condo property just north of Antler could make a connection into the greenway, that would at least open up access from that area. it would be a big benefit to the residents there. Unfortunately, I can also imagine them not wanting to have non-residents cutting through their property.....

The condo won't want that. In addition, there's a 3-4m grade change from the west property line of 812 & 816 Lansdowne to track level.

That's Ubisoft parking all the way up there? It seems like this lot is connected to 80 Ward St., though maybe all these buildings are same ownership and Ubisoft people park up there too. Or maybe Ubisoft has offices in 80 Ward St. as well, I'm not sure.

There's another bigger parking lot as well in between Ubisoft's building and 80 Ward, which seems more likely to be Ubisoft parking to me. (And which could be another place in the future for a connection if one can't be established at Antler.)

The City and Metrolinx really should get this done one way or another. Antler and Lappin could be fully connected (not for car traffic since it isn't designed for that, but for cyclists and pedestrians) as well as connecting that whole area to the east directly to Campbell Park , and to lose out on that just for a sliver of private parking is very frustrating.

It's not "just for a sliver of private parking" - there's the legality of how 'The City and Metrolinx" would go about doing this. First, the owner would have to agree to lose an income stream (no parking income) and the convenience of their tenants losing on-site parking. Then, they'd need to rezone the land to reduce the required parking (potentially not an issue as they City is moving towards eliminating parking altogether). Then, most complicatedly, you'd need to encumber the property with an access agreement and either a physical conveyance or an easement permitting public access. Then, if the space were shared between cars and pedestrians (if one still wanted to retain some parking), they'd need to convince their insurer that it's a good idea to have folks walking through their parking lot to get to a park on the other side of the tracks. At the end of the day, kids and cars [rightly] don't mix.

At the end of the day, it was stupid of Metrolinx to show it as a connection because it's clearly private property.

Can't remember where I heard this, might have in this thread or during another public meeting, but I have a vague memory of someone from either Metrolinx or the city saying that they are in negotiations with a property owner for access to Lappin and that they are going well.

I'd love for you to be correct, but for the reasons noted above, I'm doubtful that's the case.

 

[concrete_and_light]

It's not "just for a sliver of private parking" - there's the legality of how 'The City and Metrolinx" would go about doing this. First, the owner would have to agree to lose an income stream (no parking income) and the convenience of their tenants losing on-site parking. Then, they'd need to rezone the land to reduce the required parking (potentially not an issue as they City is moving towards eliminating parking altogether). Then, most complicatedly, you'd need to encumber the property with an access agreement and either a physical conveyance or an easement permitting public access. Then, if the space were shared between cars and pedestrians (if one still wanted to retain some parking), they'd need to convince their insurer that it's a good idea to have folks walking through their parking lot to get to a park on the other side of the tracks. At the end of the day, kids and cars [rightly] don't mix.

At the end of the day, it was stupid of Metrolinx to show it as a connection because it's clearly private property.

Or they could just expropriate it, right? But definitely understood, it's complicated.

I don't think Metrolinx has ever shown this as a connection though — the connection shown has always just been on the west side at Antler from what I've seen. [Based on info in a question on today's Metrolinx live stream event it sounds like that was indicated by Metrolinx at some point in the past.]

EDIT: RE: a potential new development at the site of course it couldn't be residential without switching the zoning, but the property could be redeveloped for further employment uses like the office development that's happening south of here at 77 Wade. That was the kind of thing I was thinking of when I floated the idea of a redevelopment possibly opening up a connection in the future, not a residential development. I highly support this area being kept as employment lands!

Your points about the issues with mixing traffic from the parking with the trail are definitely good, but I think this could be done by only carving off the north side of the parking and curving the access path up to the north end there and putting up a fence to keep the trail separate from the remaining lot. Of course the building would still lose half their parking which they wouldn't want (although the building could possibly even get a second row of cars in the reduced space too just with a tighter fit — it looks like there's a lot of space between the rows of cars), but there could maybe be a compromise here that could keep some parking and also ensure safety. And if expropriation were to happen they wouldn't have to necessarily expropriate it all.

 

[concrete_and_light]

From the meeting tonight:

Metrolinx themselves floated the idea of redevelopment as a way to achieve the Lappin connection, and in general was saying that they think other connections will open up once the Greenway is complete and property owners change how they use their property in response.

I asked specifically if the City or Metrolinx would consider using expropriation if the property owner didn't want to establish a connection, but my question wasn't answered.

 

[ProjectEnd]

Or they could just expropriate it, right? But definitely understood, it's complicated.

I don't think Metrolinx has ever shown this as a connection though — the connection shown has always just been on the west side at Antler from what I've seen. [Based on info in a question on today's Metrolinx live stream event it sounds like that was indicated by Metrolinx at some point in the past.]

EDIT: RE: a potential new development at the site of course it couldn't be residential without switching the zoning, but the property could be redeveloped for further employment uses like the office development that's happening south of here at 77 Wade. That was the kind of thing I was thinking of when I floated the idea of a redevelopment possibly opening up a connection in the future, not a residential development. I highly support this area being kept as employment lands!

Your points about the issues with mixing traffic from the parking with the trail are definitely good, but I think this could be done by only carving off the north side of the parking and curving the access path up to the north end there and putting up a fence to keep the trail separate from the remaining lot. Of course the building would still lose half their parking which they wouldn't want (although the building could possibly even get a second row of cars in the reduced space too just with a tighter fit — it looks like there's a lot of space between the rows of cars), but there could maybe be a compromise here that could keep some parking and also ensure safety. And if expropriation were to happen they wouldn't have to necessarily expropriate it all.

Glad you asked the question, thanks. Frustrating that they didn't answer.

The thing about 80 Ward is that it's not just office (though there is that too - Community Food Centres Canada, a bunch of interior designers, etc.) it's one of the few, remaining, light manufacturing facilities within city limits. Lots of work happens there. In fact, last summer, I watched them wheel the below 'Jackman' sign out and strap it on a truck. Was funny to see it later appear on the forum.

Business consultant firm, Jackman, are now a tenant here. With a new exterior sign also installed.

From their IG:

Joe Jackman on Instagram: "Well it has been quite the magic month. Our new partner @simplyproteincanada relaunches, our longtime partner @flow joins the @tsxtsxv and our new home at 80 Atlantic Avenue has a brand new name and reopens this week. Thank

259 likes, 37 comments - joejackman3 on July 18, 2021: "Well it has been quite the magic month. Our new partner @simplyproteincanada relaunches, our longtime partner @flow joins the @tsxtsxv an..."

www.instagram.com

View attachment 335763

 

[facepalming_brooklynite]

Off topic, but whose idea was it to have Ward Street and Wade Avenue around the corner from each other?