AlexBozikovic
Active Member
Last edited:
Northern Light
Superstar
Again w/the over-sized type........
Please stop that. It literally makes it less readable.
Northern Light
Superstar
Unfortunately @AlexBozikovic has his facts wrong in the piece linked by @just east of the creek
Alex talks about 9,000 units on 33 hectares in the column, but by his own statement above pegs the land area at 24ha which is in fact also inflated. We can nitpick around the edges, but it's somewhere between 20ha and 22ha.
This is the from the linked column:
This is from Alex's post on the previous page;
In Alex' own words, this is 24ha and 33ha.
Unfortunately for Alex, only 1 can be true. So at minimum, in one post, he is in error.
****
As I noted, I think he's in error in both, though the 24ha estimate is much closer to accurate.
I already noted the difference in density and height on the previous page, and unfortunately Alex' column must be dismissed for being factually incorrect.
Alex talks about 9,000 units on 33 hectares in the column, but by his own statement above pegs the land area at 24ha which is in fact also inflated. We can nitpick around the edges, but it's somewhere between 20ha and 22ha.
This is the from the linked column:
This is from Alex's post on the previous page;
In Alex' own words, this is 24ha and 33ha.
Unfortunately for Alex, only 1 can be true. So at minimum, in one post, he is in error.
****
As I noted, I think he's in error in both, though the 24ha estimate is much closer to accurate.
I already noted the difference in density and height on the previous page, and unfortunately Alex' column must be dismissed for being factually incorrect.
Attachments
Last edited:
AlexBozikovic
Active Member
The island is at least 33ha gross. The so-called "developable area," which includes Villiers Park, is roughly 24ha.
There are many design decisions baked into this that deserve scrutiny, especially how much land area is taken up by roads. But also the sizes, orientations and arrangements of buildings; tower separation distances; and assumptions about mode share.
There are many design decisions baked into this that deserve scrutiny, especially how much land area is taken up by roads. But also the sizes, orientations and arrangements of buildings; tower separation distances; and assumptions about mode share.
Last edited:
Northern Light
Superstar
"so-called"?
***
This is the block of land under discussion, which excludes non-buildable land because it's within the floodplain/natural area, or on flood protection berm. The only area excluded otherwise is a portion of 'the Lake Ontario fronting parkland.
This is almost exactly 24.0ha.
But, that includes all interior parks and all bordering streets.
There is no 33ha version of this Island that is buildable.
***
As for questioning assumptions, that's fine.
But I've put my homework on the table.
You can reduce total traffic/roads space by cutting the population density and then reducing the space allocated to cars proportionately.
You can also do that by running a subway to Villiers Island, but we opted for a design that will not have heavy Metro/High capacity Rail linking to it.
Within the existing framework, it's certainly possible, as I've noted to 'green' some interior streets, by shifting parking to the perimeter of the site.
But to do this, the parking has to displace something else, if it's not the parkland, then it's residential development. That's what they did in Merwede and in a couple of other like spots, shifting dedicated parking garages to the edge of the community.
We can do that here, it just has to come at the expense of something else. Could you integrate that parking into the design of an existing tower? Sure........but doing so below the water table is not cheap, it's Ontario Place expensive and worse.
Going above grade, has aesthetic implications and increases the height of a tower with 'x'' levels of parking above-grade, below residential. That increases shadowing and wind etc etc. It also means you need the support car capacity wherever those garages exit (likely even wider ROWs)
I'm fine w/all sorts of 'fixes' here.
But virtually all of them impose lower density and lower height, rather than greater.
At 9,000 units/15,000 people on 0.24km2, you get a population density of 60,000 per km2. More than double St. James Town.
Even if you took a more a conservative per unit total (1.4) you get 12,600 residents, still on 0.24km2, or more than 50,000 per km2.
hawc
Senior Member
Bridge still up.
Last edited:
3Dementia
Senior Member
Forgive me this wacky Blue Sky dreaming moment that can only happen in an alternate universe
but what if...1. ignoring the ridiculous expense associated with water table issues and tunnelling
2. sorting egress issues from below, particularly for mobility challenged people
3. a thousand other engineering/logistical/emergency services and financial issues....
.... we put traffic on Centre Street or even Villiers Street below grade (including "street parking" for visitors) ?
We can build towers over subways and parking garages under water... could we keep a street dry below grade and even connect to underground parking $$ along the chosen route?
Say from new Cherry Street east to New Munitions Street... only 600 metres or so?
Absurd to finance I know
... or is it?Building here is a premium development opportunity... maybe a premium charge/levy (call the bylaw Section 37+ ;-) could help pave the way to an almost fully pedestrianized spine.
Ok I'll shut up now and go back to dreaming stupid stuff.
abovegrade
Active Member
This is a great idea actually!!Forgive me this wacky Blue Sky dreaming moment that can only happen in an alternate universe
1. ignoring the ridiculous expense associated with water table issues and tunnelling
2. sorting egress issues from below, particularly for mobility challenged people
3. a thousand other engineering/logistical/emergency services and financial issues....
.... we put traffic on Centre Street or even Villiers Street below grade (including "street parking" for visitors) ?
We can build towers over subways and parking garages under water... could we keep a street dry below grade and even connect to underground parking $$ along the chosen route?
Say from new Cherry Street east to New Munitions Street... only 600 metres or so?
Absurd to finance I know
Building here is a premium development opportunity... maybe a premium charge/levy (call the bylaw Section 37+ ;-) could help pave the way to an almost fully pedestrianized spine.
Ok I'll shut up now and go back to dreaming stupid stuff.
abovegrade
Active Member
I agree with Alex, and great article.
The only thing is, as people who really want to see this project reach its fullest potential, simply writing about may not do much in terms of advocacy...maybe it needs to be directed to someone?
This is a very broad question to everyone on this thread, but what can we do other than complain about it on this forum? (Not that I don't do the same, in fact I almost always in agreement to criticisms as posted)..
But what can we do to take action??
Write to councillors, WT, MPs etc? Maybe if we all get on board somehow the word would get out. That being said, I do leave open the idea that many people support this as there have been many great changes to the port lands so far. Hope to hear from people here, thanks.
The only thing is, as people who really want to see this project reach its fullest potential, simply writing about may not do much in terms of advocacy...maybe it needs to be directed to someone?
This is a very broad question to everyone on this thread, but what can we do other than complain about it on this forum? (Not that I don't do the same, in fact I almost always in agreement to criticisms as posted)..
But what can we do to take action??
Write to councillors, WT, MPs etc? Maybe if we all get on board somehow the word would get out. That being said, I do leave open the idea that many people support this as there have been many great changes to the port lands so far. Hope to hear from people here, thanks.
Northern Light
Superstar
Forgive me this wacky Blue Sky dreaming moment that can only happen in an alternate universe
1. ignoring the ridiculous expense associated with water table issues and tunnelling
2. sorting egress issues from below, particularly for mobility challenged people
3. a thousand other engineering/logistical/emergency services and financial issues....
.... we put traffic on Centre Street or even Villiers Street below grade (including "street parking" for visitors) ?
We can build towers over subways and parking garages under water... could we keep a street dry below grade and even connect to underground parking $$ along the chosen route?
Ignoring the issues I've been asked to disregard, sure. LOL
Though, in all seriousness, that's not what I would do to achieve your objective.
If you shift parking towards the perimeter, you don't need centre street, presuming any retail can be loaded from within the building.
You would keep the N-S cross streets open, you would have to have a 4M hardscaped 'path' across the pedestrianized space that an ambulance/fire could traverse if needed, but was essentially reserved to pedestrians.
Building 'through capacity' underground for such a short distance doesn't have much value, particularly when costs and ramps are considered.
Absurd to finance I know
In the variation I suggest above, it is feasible, and affordable.
There would be some increase in costs, but not huge.
There is a premium already baked in, which finances Waterfront Toronto's existing plans, and affordable housing. There isn't much remaining opportunity on pricing.,
Ok I'll shut up now and go back to dreaming stupid stuff.
Nothing wrong w/bring ideas forward, particularly with an open mind to how they might be finessed.
Northern Light
Superstar
Writing to the right people can be helpful. But you do need to know what is you want that is not currently on offer, and propose a means to achieving it.
You can't simply ask for a fairy tale.
So, for instance, as per the suggestion of @3Dementia above. You would like to pedestrianize one of the roads.
This requires the following questions/answers:
1) Where do you proposed to redirect the traffic presumed to used this road? (There are legit answers, but you have to pick one)
2) If that parking provided on-street is deemed necessary for visitors or shoppers, where do you proposed to relocate said parking?
3) Does your change impeded transit?
4) Does your change impede loading access or parking access to a proposed building? How do you proposed to resolve that?
5) How will you accommodate emergency services? (I've already provided that solution above)
6) Does your idea/solution cost more than the existing proposal? If so, where will the additional funding needed come from?
* I will note here, w/o doxing anyone, that people from City Planning and from Waterfront Toronto are members of this forum, so what gets written here is often read by people of influence.
Once you've have your idea formed above, the first people to write to are WT and the people managing this plan. It will always be easiest to make any tweaks at this stage. (though earlier would have been easier still).
When the Plan goes to Committee, (at City Hall) writing to the Committee Chair and/or your councillor if they are on the Committee would be strong choices; and following that, the Mayor.
***
This is the timeline:
The intention is to take the zoning component of what's proposed here though Council by the summer break.
But the public realm component is open to refinement even afterwards.
If you want the zoning re-done, it will set the entire project back by at minimum of one quarter (3 months), but maybe longer depending on how drastic the proposed change, as it might require re-modelling everything.
Northern Light
Superstar
PS for those interested here are the slides from the meeting the other night:
Collingwoodbuildinglover
Active Member
Okay just going to put this out there but somebody with the title above grade telling somebody is a good idea to put everything subterranean just made my day thanks guys
I'm
abovegrade
Active Member
I understand it's a big ask, but this is the future of our city! And the last developable parcel of land right near the heart of downtown. I have already voiced these opinions at meetings/feedback sessions. It shouldn't intrinsically be this...boring.
I did see something about flexible zoning as the landscape changes, but again contemporary urban planning practises are trying to de-emphasize reliance on and design of streets for automobiles in general.
This is deeply North American thinking and needs to stop.
abovegrade
Active Member
Collingwood is fun. You have a nice lookout to Toronto from that ski hill.