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.”
The above is not supported by the facts.
I have laid out the facts on this repeatedly, the above simply doubles down with opinion unsupported by evidence.
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.
This is misleading. the building face to building face distance is how that calculation is being made, which includes the sidewalk space, patio space, pedestrian space and cycle tracks.
I happen to prefer narrower building to building distances, but to achieve this you have to lower the street wall, you also have to lower the number of cars, which can only be achieved one of two ways, a subway stop on Villiers or less density than is currently proposed.
Breaking up larger blocks with mid-block mews would help as well; but again, this creates low street walls and less space for towers.
Unfortunately, the discussion in the piece simply lacks any discussion of the trade-offs in it.
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
Regrettably, this comparison again asserts something that is not supported by the facts here.
While there are aspects of the Wellington Basin project worth emulating................
it's notable that the Montreal proposal is 20% less dense than Villiers.
To achieve the inaccurate comparison of density, the piece wrongly includes the river basin in the Toronto calculation, to do the same thing in Montreal, you would include the water in the Basin itself and that would lower the density in Montreal even more drastically.
A fair comparison shows Villiers at ~41,000 units per km2; where the Wellington Basin is 33,000 units per km2.
Further, the Wellington Basin proposal contains only 1.3ha of parks, insufficient to support even one sports field.
Let's then add, I have some concerns over the viability of the Montreal proposal as is; it's comparatively surrounded by highways, and is not served by subway, Lucien-L'Allier station is just over 1km from here which is just outside what most people consider a reasonable commuting walk. The plan relies on construction of an as yet, unapproved, unfunded REM Station in order to achieve its objectives.
Note the difference there w/Villiers, that it would have higher order transit on site, or so the proponents hope, with their fingers crossed.
*****
That said, there are things in the Wellington Basin proposal that I quite like:
The choice to go for larger, centralized parking facilities. I specifically noted that possibility for Villiers, as opposed to thinking about parking on building by building or block by block basis. That said, given the water table in the Portlands, there is a material cost to going deep underground, and the alternative is an above-grade parking facility, which would result in reduced density.
I like the Wellington proposal for including a swimmable beach; I'm not sure that is/was feasible on Villers so long as their is a working port here, a concrete facility here, and Cherry Beach isn't that far. Still, good inclusion.
I do like the variable building heights; I'm also keen on the fact the Montreal proposal leans shorter (less tall) than Villiers.
Finally, the best part of the Wellington proposal is its ambition on affordable housing.......notwithstanding that it is less dense than Villiers:
That is from this:
Where can glean further info about the project; you can also consult this:
