AlvinofDiaspar said:
This issue reminded me of the early debate over ROW at Regent Park - TFS was stated as the primary reason why even the narrowest ROWs are as wide as they are.

AoD
Click to expand...

TFS are definitely an issue, in the past, (I haven't spoken to Planning about this recently) their demand was 11M curb to curb (so sidewalks/boulevards are extra).

The minimum functional requirement for two-way traffic is 6M, though some would argue for 7M (3-3.5m per lane). That minimum presumes no on-street parking.

Looking up to the chart I posted, travel lane + parking appears to be allocated at 9M, so they seem to have reduced the TFS demand, at least a little. (Local Street - Sidewalk plus Planting Zone shows as 11M, out of a 20M ROW)
 
Why do the parks have to open before work on the development parcels begins? Don't really understand why there's a delay to bring these sites to market, etc.
 
hbf92 said:
Why do the parks have to open before work on the development parcels begins? Don't really understand why there's a delay to bring these sites to market, etc.
Click to expand...

That's not how the timing is working.

You can't develop anything until the flood protection is complete. The project won't be considered complete until the plugs have been removed and the debris management area is in operation.

If you moved faster, there's a risk anything you build would be flooded, and it would not be insurable for that.

***

Additionally, construction crews need road access, so only streets fronting an open road could be considered for initial development.

***

Finally, keep in mind, WT are not sitting back doing nothing, they're pushing Quayside forward.
 
Northern Light said:
That's not how the timing is working.

You can't develop anything until the flood protection is complete. The project won't be considered complete until the plugs have been removed and the debris management area is in operation.

If you moved faster, there's a risk anything you build would be flooded, and it would not be insurable for that.

***

Additionally, construction crews need road access, so only streets fronting an open road could be considered for initial development.

***

Finally, keep in mind, WT are not sitting back doing nothing, they're pushing Quayside forward.
Click to expand...
Didn't mean start building residential uses, just that it seems like there will be a considerable lag between the completion of the PLFP and the island to become developable or marketable. Wouldn't some of those transactions support investments required to build the streetcar?

The revised Precinct Plan is only now making its way through Council (still think it's a wasted opportunity but at least rezoning for greater densities down the line as the market dictates will solve for that) and the Public Realm and Infrastructure Design Study process is only beginning Q4 of this year. I understand outside of Cherry and Commissioners, roads and servicing are outside of the PLFP scope. Not pinning the blame here on WT... just on Council once again lacking political will to advance things in a timely fashion. Especially given the Federal/Provincial enabling infrastructure budgets floating around this year.
 
hbf92 said:
Didn't mean start building residential uses, just that it seems like there will be a considerable lag between the completion of the PLFP and the island to become developable or marketable. Wouldn't some of those transactions support investments required to build the streetcar?
Click to expand...

No WT gets the money from land sales and reinvests in a variety of ways, but not the WELRT.

hbf92 said:
The revised Precinct Plan is only now making its way through Council (still think it's a wasted opportunity but at least rezoning for greater densities down the line as the market dictates will solve for that) and the Public Realm and Infrastructure Design Study process is only beginning Q4 of this year. I understand outside of Cherry and Commissioners, roads and servicing are outside of the PLFP scope. Not pinning the blame here on WT... just on Council once again lacking political will to advance things in a timely fashion.
Click to expand...

The initial precinct plan was approved here in 2017. Assorted individuals and groups asked for revisions to support greater density, had they not, that issue was largely resolved subject to minor tweaks. I'm not arguing here about the changes asked for, simply noting that but for them, an approved plan was in place.

Here's the 2017 Plan:


I would add here, Council has asked for support for advancing different projects such as the WELT from upper levels of government; thus far, that support has not been forthcoming.

I won't let the City off the hook, it's not that things couldn't move faster on their end...........but there are lots of other players at the table........just go back and look and the endless hassle over removing the railway track within this area. Something that the City was repeatedly frustrated (delayed) at doing by Ports Toronto and others.
 
Am I understanding correctly that the big disconnect here is that Alex B. is calculating FSI based on all land subtracting the river valley lands, while NL is calculating the FSI based on the developable blocks (ie subtracting river valley land and streets)?
 
allengeorge said:
Am I understanding correctly that the big disconnect here is that Alex B. is calculating FSI based on all land subtracting the river valley lands, while NL is calculating the FSI based on the developable blocks (ie subtracting river valley land and streets)?
Click to expand...

I won't speak for Alex.

I'm taking my numbers directly from WT as posted on the previous page. Yes, those are for the developable blocks.

Including the adjacent streets would be like telling Concord (at Sky) they could water down their FSI by including the land area of Yonge Street and Gerrard, which doesn't make any sense to me. Just as a development on Broadview next to the Don Valley, doesn't get to factor in all of the valley they can't build on.

We have to calculate FSI or Density the same way every time or any comparison is meaningless.
 
Last edited:
Northern Light said:
I won't speak for Alex.

I'm taking my numbers directly from WT as posted on the previous page. Yes, those are for the developable blocks.

Including the adjacent streets would be like telling Concord (at Sky) they could water down their FSI by including the land area of Yonge Street and Gerrard, which doesn't make any sense to me. Just as a development on Broadview next to the Don Valley, doesn't get to factor in all of the valley they can't build on.

We have to calculate FSI or Density the same way every time or any comparison is meaningless.
Click to expand...

This is the correct way to determine FSI in my opinion. You typically include site area which might include some area that is to be dedicated to the City upon completion (setbacks areas), but you don't typically include roads, since usually roads are set out prior to development. In this case, you would exlcude the road areas, to keep it an apples to apples comparison. Then it simply becomes the total buildable GFA/ Site area with those caveats. I think you're correct with 7.7 FSI.
 
DSC said:
# 3 would seem to be 190 Cherry where the new Porsche dealer is going- and they have permits.

Application:
Conditional Permit
Status:
Not Started
Location:
190 CHERRY ST
TORONTO ON
Ward 14: Toronto-Danforth
Application#:
24 161572 FND 00 CP
Accepted Date:
---
Project:
Car Dealership
Work:
Partial Permit - Foundation
Description:
Conditional Permit - Part Permit - Proposal to construct a new 3 storey car dealership - Porsche Centre Downtown See also 24 144833 STE SA
Click to expand...
Can we find someone to zone the hell out of car dealerships 1. Downtown and 2. Within 15km of the waterfront?

I’d prefer we just go back and build a Home Depot
 
Last edited by a moderator:
hawc said:
What do you have against Porsche Dealerships downtown or within15 km of the waterfront?

😆
Click to expand...
It’s kinda hilarious that Alex has written entire articles about making Villier’s less road, but is silent about the prospect of devoting any chunk of the Portlands to Porsche and Porsche storage. That kind of thing feels like it should headline a screed (not an article, specifically a screed)

I feel like any attempt at a car dealership in a dense downtown area should be relegated to like, 5,000 square ft. One window, and if you’re gonna store cars- it’s all underground parking. You get to show one car, tell people it comes in 12 colours and here are the options.

Really tho, I’m surprised that all the density hawks, small street proponents, car-free fans and “no parking minimum” folks aren’t raging over this.
 
jxmith_ said:
I feel like any attempt at a car dealership in a dense downtown area should be relegated to like, 5,000 square ft. One window, and if you’re gonna store cars- it’s all underground parking. You get to show one car, tell people it comes in 12 colours and here are the options.
Click to expand...
Perhaps it's temporary until the developments in that area really get going. It's a slightly better use of the land than a surface parking lot at least.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top