Northern Light said:
Quibble: The plan is not for 16ha of parkland but for 11.2ha of parkland.

Extra Quibble: Everything in the image below in dark green is marsh, you'll only have limited access on boardwalks, its not like is a soccer pitch or people can spread widely around.

View attachment 488040


Of note, there is only one playing field (soccer) proposed for the area, and it is to be shared w/the new school.
Click to expand...
If you're willing to go beyond the planning district:
  • Parliament Slip (1.67 ha)
  • Promenade along north of Keating Channel (>1 ha)
  • Don Mouth north of Keating Channel (?)
  • Ship Channel promenades (5+ ha)
 
Metroscapes said:
If you're willing to go beyond the planning district:
  • Parliament Slip (1.67 ha)
  • Promenade along north of Keating Channel (>1 ha)
  • Don Mouth north of Keating Channel (?)
  • Ship Channel promenades (5+ ha)
Click to expand...

I have no problem with going beyond the planning district, though we always have to compare apples to apples which means adding the additional population envelope for those same areas.

So the above would add any development planned between Keating and Lake Shore, any between Villiers and Parliament Slip, anything directly abutting the slip and Quayside.
 
max said:
Why bother making a New Munition and renaming current Munition to Old Munition? It's not like Cherry where there's parts of the street off the island and the new alignment is what is connecting to them.
Click to expand...

On nomenclature I have no opinion, I'm not sure how this ties into the discussion though of how adequately serviced the proposed density will be?
 
Northern Light said:
On nomenclature I have no opinion, I'm not sure how this ties into the discussion though of how adequately serviced the proposed density will be?
Click to expand...
I've adjusted the quote in my post to only take the map, which is the part on which I was commenting. I noticed this on that map you had posted and hadn't been aware of this aspect of the plan for the street names before.
 
This map of the area in 1889 shows how much has changed! Correction! See post below - this was never built as shown here but it does show how the "Ashbridges Marsh" was land-filled

water lots.jpg

Here is a few years later - this is a photograph of a portion of the Waterfront Conditions plan produced by the Toronto Harbour Commissioners showing the most eastern part of the waterfront in 1912. Fonds 200, Series 1465, File 59, Item 72

ashbridges.jpg
 
Last edited:
^ aha!

So it's "Toronto Bay" not harbour.

I will shortly be pitching new, corrected branding tools (logo, signage, website, print et al) to:

Harbourfront, Harbour Plaza and Harbour Square condos, Harbour 60 restaurant, the Harbour Commission Archives, the City of Toronto (Harbour Street)... oh dear I'll need some help on this makeover.
 
DSC said:
This map of the area in 1889 shows how much has changed!

View attachment 488344
Click to expand...

This is not a map of the area, it was the Beavis and Browne Syndicate proposal which never went through.

All of that area was still Marsh in 1889.

Keating channel went ahead in the 1890's....

But the bulk of the 'reclamation' of the marsh occured following approval of the 1912 plan.

The details of this history are available at the link below:


From the above (but mislabeled as 1984, LOL); this is how the area looked in 1894:

1687896158944.png


Here's a better look, sourced from Wikipedia: (1906)

1920px-1906_Toronto_Harbour_map.png


The ultimate build-out varied a bit, but here's the 1912 plan which largely informs what we see today:

1687896616350.png

Source: https://portlandsto.ca/wp-content/uploads/Port+Lands+Planning+Framework_Section4-3.pdf
 
Last edited:
3Dementia said:
^ you'll note 'Toronto Bay' in the image you posted from the PDF (and there's at least one more like it)... so I'm moving forward on my strategic renaming plan 'Bay watch'.

⌚
Click to expand...

LOL.

Just for nomenclature geeks.

Bay: Describes a natural geographic feature, which is a recessed area of land (filled with water) which is connected to a larger body of water such as a Lake, Sea or Ocean.

Harbour: Describes a function, a place where ships may be docked, and afforded shelter from stormy waters.

A harbour may be located within a Bay.
 
Northern Light said:
That's the size of Villiers Island. I don't get the idea that we just gob a few hundred extra hectares on to lower the density.

Liberty Village's density would be a lot lower if we added the CNE site to it.

Why don't we just add the entire Don Valley to St.Jamestown?

This is a discrete block of land, bounded by water on 4 sides (hence 'Island') The density calculation I offer is reasonable and fair. This site is not sitting at the intersection of Lines 1 and 2.

The comparisons I made to Liberty Village and St.Jamestown are on point, and their density is calculated in the same way.
Click to expand...
the ever curious density fearing/urban resident contradiction. No matter how many 'calculations' you throw up you are not convincing anyone that these renderings of mostly 6 story midrise buildings are "utterly, contemptibly unreasonable".
 
jmi22 said:
the ever curious density fearing/urban resident contradiction. No matter how many 'calculations' you throw up you are not convincing anyone that these renderings of mostly 6 story midrise buildings are "utterly, contemptibly unreasonable".
Click to expand...

The above statement defies all reason and logic.

Where did you get the idea that I fear height or density? I oppose excessive density, we're not talking about six-storey midrises here, you apparently have no idea what's proposed here, even though it's been posted. Sigh.

This was the old plan:

1687910080584.png


Note a maximum height of 29 storeys, which I was supportive of.

****

This is what we are now discussing:

1687910221695.png


49 storeys
48 storeys
47 storeys
45 storeys
37 storeys
36 storeys
31 storeys
28 storeys
24 storeys
24 storeys
22 storeys
22 storeys
21 storeys
16 storeys


That's 4 towers greater than 40s, 3 more greater than 30s, and a total of 14 towers of 16s or greater..............

Please tell me again about this development of six storey midrises that I oppose!

Here is the link you should have read before posting:

 
Northern Light said:
The above statement defies all reason and logic.

Where did you get the idea that I fear height or density? I oppose excessive density, we're not talking about six-storey midrises here, you apparently have no idea what's proposed here, even though its been posted. Sigh.

This was the old plan:

View attachment 488378

Note a maximum height of 29 storeys, which I was supportive of.

****

This is what we are now discussing:

View attachment 488379

49 storeys
48 storeys
47 storeys
45 storeys
37 storeys
36 storeys
31 storeys
28 storeys
24 storeys
24 storeys
22 storeys
22 storeys
21 storeys
16 storeys


That's 4 towers greater than 40s, 3 more greater than 30s, and a total of 14 towers of 16s or greater..............

Please tell me again about this development of six storey midrises that I oppose!

Here is the link you should have read before posting:

Click to expand...
ill apologize once your plan gets anywhere other than the echo chamber of this forum. The height is good and is appropriate considering the insane housing supply shortage Toronto (and Canada) are experiencing right now. Concerns of parkland being overrun (as well as the bizarre comment from another poster wondering how much space each resident would have if they were all placed within the park at the same time) simply don't hold up to reality. Humber Bay Shores, as i'm sure you are aware, is incredibly high in density and the waterfront park is absolutely alive with people enjoying the weather on any given summer evening. I prefer to cycle there from New Toronto in order to experience the liveliness of the area, as opposed to the quiet parks of my area, brought on by a shrinking and aging population.

As much as you would love to chalk up taller towers to "developer greed', the people planning this new neighbourhood are making the right choice. 2 new streetcar lines, connecting to the newest subway in north america, and a revolutionized GO service will serve the area well, and if it ever out grows the existing infrastructure than more can be built.

Your concerns about the lack of school construction are well founded.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top