Globe & Mail article this morning (behind paywall) about Villiers being another potential disaster. Can anyone post a summary of what it's saying?
Article:
After a 15-year grind of studies and plans, what the city is planning for a major new waterfront neighbourhood falls far short of what it needs to be
www.theglobeandmail.com
“ The city, province and the feds could build thousands more affordable homes here; city planners and the agency Waterfront Toronto would prefer not to.”
1. Low number of homes
“ The 40-hectare island, on the doorstep of downtown Toronto, is now planned for about 9,000 homes, plus cultural uses and retail. That density number is very low – perhaps half of what any private landowner would ask for today.”
2. Poor streetscape
“ This “mix” is a stew of the technical and the subjective, including “solar access” and a desire for very wide streets. Somehow the island plan has almost as much street space – 8.8 hectares – as the 10.6 hectares devoted to buildings.
That is disastrous urban design, without precedent or excuse.”
“ Panel member Nina-Marie Lister, a planner, ecological designer and Toronto Metropolitan University professor, sent criticisms to the panel by e-mail.
…
“The precinct looks and feels like more of the same,” she wrote. It seems to be “a neighbourhood catering to the car,” and it needs more density, narrower streets, multiple scales of buildings and a “finer grain” of development.””
Note: Alex compares it incredibly poorly to Montreal’s own project:
The Montreal plan has two unusual characteristics: there are buildings of different sizes and shapes, and car-free public space forms the bones of the neighbourhood
www.theglobeandmail.com