[Northern Light]

The area east of Atlantic in LV, which is about 2/3 of the area you measured, and houses exactly 0 people, does not strike me as particularly fair.

Villiers Island will be literally surrounded by a massive public park which will dilute the perceived density on the actual development blocks - and besides, as I already mentioned, even those actual development blocks are far from overly dense. The densest block is only around 5.9 FSI.. not low density for sure, but not particularly dense, and most certianly very, very, very far from the "Densest place ion the planet". I mean I could think of a dozen areas in the GTA alone which are being planned or are already at far higher densities than that.

Comparing one block to 22 hectares isn't reasonable either.

However, let's add...is Liberty Village full of traffic jams and inadequate park space as it is? (yes)

Lets equally look at St.Jamestown where the library, parks and schools are all hopelessly over subscribed.

I don't understand at all the refusal to acknowledge that people require supporting infrastructure, schools, parks, transit, shopping etc.

That is just really, really not super dense at all. You can go just down the waterfront to Sugar Wharf where Menkes is building 5,000 units on 2 hectares of land to see what I am talking about.

Which will be on the same under-sized (capacity) LRT as Villiers.........

Yes...but at least the Menkes site is walking distance to the core employment area and to Union Station, neither of which is true for Villiers.

East Harbour Station is at the outer limits of walking distance for most people from Commissioners.

The point is to plan in an integrated way; this isn't planning this hodgepodge stick-it-here stuff.

The transit infra planned was a stretch to support the old plan, it no longer makes sense for this new one.

Where's the subway to support this?

****

I hear Humber Bay Shores calling.............built without one supermarket (later gained a Metro at the edge), very poor transit, over subscribed parks and a low quality of life for many residents as a result.

Repeating mistakes is unhelpful.

 

[Northern Light]

This is, to be blunt, a nonsensical way of thinking about urbanism. A neighbourhood is not a walled village. It is a component within a larger whole in which people move freely. Different areas and people contribute different things. This is the entire point of a city.

To be blunt; you're wrong.

Math indicates how far people will choose to walk, math indicates the capacity of the LRT serving this community, math indicates how many high school students this community will generate.

No one is suggesting people are unable to leave the neighbourhood for work, what I am suggesting is that at this density the planned transit will not serve that purpose. We're now planning subway density and that requires a subway.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Sure, but to the average person, the core is not walking distance for commuting, school or a grocery store.

For this kind of density, the Ontario Line needs to have a stop in this community. The Waterfront East LRT and Broadview LRT, will not have sufficient capacity to move the projected population.

We need a High School, among other amenities to make this work. There is no indication that the supporting infrastructure will be in place.


Sure, but there are other alternatives.

1) Stop growing the population; that's a choice.

2) We can can place more moderate density across a much larger area.

But it is an attractor - and people move greater distances by bike or other modes for the same things. The lack of implemented transit is an issue - but that's not an unsolvable issue; plus it didn't stop people from living where there is subpar transit access when housing is the first priority.

As to your other options - the first is literally beyond the scope of this discussion and cannot be presumed as a solution; the second is easier said than done, given the level of opposition to increasing density across the board anywhere. Just because there is a change in policy doesn't equate to change actually happening.

AoD

 

[christiesplits]

I always supported a modest increase in density for the area, and I think the new proposal accomplishes this. There's a nice mix of buildings of varying height. It's not *quite* the tall glass box hood of City Place or Humber Bay Shores, but isn't the Port Credit or Oakville waterfront either.

One positive about an increase in residential density in the area, which I believe @AlexBozikovic noted in a recent tweet, is that it will likely lead to a more robust commercial (retail, restaurant) area.

 

[vz64]

Agreed with Northern Light, we are building a 21c St. Jamestown... while leaving mostly untouched SDH neighborhoods scattered throughout the city that would be able to absorb the housing demands. I was hoping to see a continuation of what we started inCorktown and Distillery District: a mid-rise, European-looking architecture and density.

 

[innsertnamehere]

Google says the density of the Upper West Side of Manhattan is 44,000perkm2, or 7,000 lower than this proposal (at the low end)

The Upper West Side directly abuts Central Park which is 1,000acres

The Upper West Side has 4 subway stations within its limits, and 2 more adjacent

Its also served by six bus routes.

There are no fewer than 8 High Schools



Even with an inordinate amount of parkland, superficially, the City standard is 28m2 per person, which would net you 30ha of parkland within or immediately adjacent to this community.

This community will actually rank as parkland deficient the day its built.



Which is, of course, a very silly way to do the calculation; so instead, we consider the money over which you actually have legal access and control. In the same fashion, we want to consider not what is found 2km away from this new community, but what would be found within it.

The upper west side is across about 500 hectares vs. 22 here, and has a population of over 200,000 people. It's not a great comparison either. Villiers will house about 10,000 people, it's not a great comparison.

The city standard of 300 square feet of parkland per person is insane for an urban context and not realistic. Every 30-storey building requires a hectare-sized park at that standard. It's just not possible in an urban context. Applying that standard to an urban area would register literally any apartment-focused neighbourhood as deficient unless it was basically a tower-in-the-park (literally) environment, and even Villiers Island, which basically is that, is still registering as deficient!

Again - 272 units a hectare is not particularly high by modern development standards in the GTA.

 

[smably]

Another thought on density. The Galleria redevelopment is proposing 3600 units on roughly 4 hectares (I eyeballed it on a map so ballpark figure here, probably actually smaller in reality), so say around 170,000 people per km2. Even if you include the park to the south, it's still easily over 80k per sq km. That's way more than even the most aggressive scenario for the Lower Don Lands. And the Galleria doesn't even have an LRT.

There's certainly precedent for this level of density, and much more. Infrastructure will be needed, yes, so let's build the infrastructure to make it a great place to live.

 

[AlexBozikovic]

A 21st-century St James Town, home to 10,000+ people near downtown living car-light or car-free.

But with lots of social housing, high-quality architecture, well-maintained streets and a first-class major park next door.

This is… bad?

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

I think this is broadly comparable to Regent Park Phase 4/5, which is fine.

AoD

 

[UtakataNoAnnex]

If I stand next to Elon Musk, we are, on average, very rich.

Off topically: ...and on average, very awful. That's why you would want to run as far away from him as you can. I know I would. >.<

 

[Northern Light]

The upper west side is across about 500 hectares vs. 22 here, and has a population of over 200,000 people. It's not a great comparison either. Villiers will house about 10,000 people, it's not a great comparison.

I agree, but it was a comparison I was given, not one I chose to raise.

The city standard of 300 square feet of parkland per person is insane for an urban context and not realistic. Every 30-storey building requires a hectare-sized park at that standard. It's just not possible in an urban context. Applying that standard to an urban area would register literally any apartment-focused neighbourhood as deficient unless it was basically a tower-in-the-park (literally) environment, and even Villiers Island, which basically is that, is still registering as deficient!

The problem w/the parkland standard is not what you highlight precisely.

Rather, is that the City includes natural/ravine parklands in those numbers along with table-top, manicured parks.

One has a primarily ecological purpose, along with keeping people out of floodplains, the other is to serve recreational needs. (playgrounds, sports fields, picnics etc.)

You really need to separate the two out, and you then need to consider a reasonable balance of access (distance to a park) with the area required to fill the demands that will be made upon it.

***

Lets work backwards, what's a reasonable number of soccer fields per thousand residents?

Lets look at Europe first, shall we?

Source: dataisbeautiful/comments/rd64r1

Looking at Northern Europe its 3-5 pitches (fields) per 1,000 residents

About 1/2 of western Europe is in the range of 1-2.

Now, Football/soccer is dominant there in a way it is not (yet) in North America, so we have to have some balance between basketball courts, hockey rinks and baseball diamonds etc.....

But a median number here might 1 field per 500 residents of either baseball or soccer type.

That does create a problem, where we wish to plunk down 11,000 people, and that would mean 22 sports fields.

We can all agree that there are denser and less dense areas; that school yards could be reasonably included, and that not every resident will benefit from that type of average.

Yet......is only 1 field per 10,000 residents reasonable? I would argue it is not, that it is inadequate.

****

Perhaps we might use a different metric, particulaly when considering natural areas.

What percentage of the City should be park space?

Toronto is at ~13.5%

Warsaw is at 17%

London, UK is 33%

Rome is 38%

Stockholm is 40%

And one of my favourite cities, Vienna at 50%

But what about some new world options you ask?

Sydney, Aus, 46%

NYC 27% (obviously this is lower parkland per capita than Toronto, but not by so much)

Los Angeles 34% (much higher than Toronto per capita)

What about crowded Asia you ask?

Guangzhou is 19%

Seoul, SK is 27%

Source: http://www.worldcitiescultureforum.com/data/of-public-green-space-parks-and-gardens

Toronto is among the lower cities in terms of total area devoted to parks among global cities people would like to live in....

Again - 272 units a hectare is not particularly high by modern development standards in the GTA.

Perhaps modern standards in the GTA are wrong?

 

[evandyk]

The problem is not the number of people, but that the city and province refuse to plan for it with transit and schools.

 

[Northern Light]

The problem is not the number of people, but that the city and province refuse to plan for it with transit and schools.

The problem is the people in the absence of the latter. (along with parks, libraries, social support services, childcare etc etc.)

The idea that we can approve density w/o the requisite services in place boggles the mind.

Tell the province and the City it's a hard no, not one more unit anywhere until we build the requisite stuff, then have them panic and tell the feds to turn off the people tap or shell out tens of billions for the needed investments.

I'm not opposed to sustainable density, I am opposed to density that is unsustainable because its un-supported by the above or under-supported.

****

I will still add though, I really see no need to cram all the density into a few comparatively small nodes.

 

[jxmyth_]

last count I did for Canary, Distillery, Esplanade and Queens Quay East there’s 26k units. And that’s before the silo grounds, north of Keating and Gardiner E are developed.

Increasing density on Villiers seems unnecessary, and it’s getting tiresome hearing everyone parrot the words “affordable housing” as if doing so magically cures all.

It’s not going to solve the housing crisis, but it will likely ruin the park space they’re building at the moment, which the residents of the surrounding 26k units desperately need. Lord knows what the Province will do with the Hearn, but I’ll take whatever we can do to lessen the impact on the green space and marshes we’ll be getting.

The other thing, especially with this election right now, that I’d like someone to break down for me - actually IS affordable housing, perhaps more specifically how/why it’s supposed to work.

I knew someone who bought into Regent Park years back. They moved out and rented it until they were ready to sell to help finance their detached home. So the unit was “affordable” only once, but allowed someone the ability to build equity for their next home AND created housing stock. Cool. There’s some good things in there but like I said, it was affordable ONCE.

When I hear folks talk about density on Villiers I can’t help but think that the first residents are gonna get some great equity when they move out of such a unique location, but it’ll be unattainable to most soon after. (As an aside, why isn’t controlled rental first and foremost the proposed solution to the housing crisis? ELI5)

I know that’s a general question, but I feel like Villiers is getting rich people and expensive units either right away or after the first residents sell. I’d prefer the whole thing to not be residential, maybe just a big mega school district. Perhaps a bit of public housing attached. With the athletic field to the south, and natural setting I think it would be a great place to send your kid.

I feel like the Port Lands should be like Toronto Island without the ferry ride, so low density if at all, turf Rebel and Cabana and well, not sure what we could do with the movie studios so *shrug*

 

[Northern Light]

last count I did for Canary, Distillery, Esplanade and Queens Quay East there’s 26k units. And that’s before the silo grounds, north of Keating and Gardiner E are developed.

Increasing density on Villiers seems unnecessary, and it’s getting tiresome hearing everyone parrot the words “affordable housing” as if doing so magically cures all.

It’s not going to solve the housing crisis, but it will likely ruin the park space they’re building at the moment, which the residents of the surrounding 26k units desperately need. Lord knows what the Province will do with the Hearn, but I’ll take whatever we can do to lessen the impact on the green space and marshes we’ll be getting.

The other thing, especially with this election right now, that I’d like someone to break down for me - actually IS affordable housing, perhaps more specifically how/why it’s supposed to work.

I knew someone who bought into Regent Park years back. They moved out and rented it until they were ready to sell to help finance their detached home. So the unit was “affordable” only once, but allowed someone the ability to build equity for their next home AND created housing stock. Cool. There’s some good things in there but like I said, it was affordable ONCE.

When I hear folks talk about density on Villiers I can’t help but think that the first residents are gonna get some great equity when they move out of such a unique location, but it’ll be unattainable to most soon after. (As an aside, why isn’t controlled rental first and foremost the proposed solution to the housing crisis? ELI5)

I know that’s a general question, but I feel like Villiers is getting rich people and expensive units either right away or after the first residents sell. I’d prefer the whole thing to not be residential, maybe just a big mega school district. Perhaps a bit of public housing attached. With the athletic field to the south, and natural setting I think it would be a great place to send your kid.

I feel like the Port Lands should be like Toronto Island without the ferry ride, so low density if at all, turf Rebel and Cabana and well, not sure what we could do with the movie studios so *shrug*

I have no difficulty w/housing here, but I concur with much of your opening.

I do think answering questions like, where does the core site its next large hospital, and where might it site another University campus, and where might we build a new High School with a full sports field; etc etc. would be good to have answered
before we develop the largest chunk of land next to built-up urban core in North America.

*****

On affordable housing, that's another issue, much of what has been discussed is workplace affordable rental which is ~80% of market value...or about 2k per month.

There are a whole lot of people in Toronto who can't 'afford' anything like that.

The argument made is that the density makes it possible to offer more of this or a smattering of 'deeply affordable/RGI' units.

Not buying, that's predicated on the government not putting any cash into the housing and instead having private builders deliver it, at a profit.

I would argue that this is the wrong-type of housing, delivered in the most ineffective way imaginable outside of U.S. section 8 vouchers.

It should be private-sector, purpose-built rental only (no condos) at market + government financed co-op, non-profit and RGI housing (which may be blended with market units as per the Vienna model in order
to make it perpetually self-financing post construction.)