rdaner
Senior Member
After taking a little wonder through this area and seeing how advanced many of the applications are I am wondering if we will see more development here rather than on Villiers?
- Thread starter Northern Light
- Start date
milkycontent
Active Member
It would make sense as it's a larger site (in terms of developable land) and slightly closer to East Harbour station.
christiesplits
Senior Member
Like Villiers Island, @AlexBozikovic gives the thumbs down to the McCleary District plan.
On the waterfront, Toronto fumbles its plans for another new neighbourhood
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/can...fumbles-its-plans-for-another-new/?login=true (paywall)
Snippet:
On the waterfront, Toronto fumbles its plans for another new neighbourhood
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/can...fumbles-its-plans-for-another-new/?login=true (paywall)
Snippet:
Northern Light
Superstar
Alex has some legitimate complaints............but I'm afraid to say, once again fails a basic fact check, which detracts from his better points.
Below is the Right-of-Way Width map for the City. University Avenue is mostly in purple which is 45M or greater.
Here's a real world distance measure of the University Avenue ROW just north of Dundas:
That line is 55.1M wide.
****
To be clear, the WT Panel was correct to be critical, and I agree with many of Alex's concerns, but when you provide inaccurate information in the service of good idea, you diminish the credibility of the idea.
I'll dissect some of the issues raised in further detail later today or tomorrow.
I don't like what the City's staff/consultants came up with either. It is possible to do better.
But I will add in advance, the area, as envisioned (total density) cannot support the vision that many of us would like, in part because transit access/service is so poor. Yes, high quality transit isn't that far away, but its not close enough to support both this type of density and a walkable, bikeable, transit-forward vision that is low on cars.
At this point, we need to either admit that at an enormous mistake was made in the transit scheme here, and drastically reduce the envisioned density; OR, we need to go back to the drawing board and come up with much better transit and an overhauled vision of everything east of Parliament that would align with that.
****
Whatever level of density we aspire to; the concepts put forward are not conducive to the ideals being described (including by the City and WT).
rdaner
Senior Member
Valid points although I imagine that the presence of Harbour East Station and bus service will satisfy the initial residents/developers so no need to put everything on hold.
Northern Light
Superstar
Remember what we are discussing. Alex wrote a column in which he shared that WT's design panel was unhappy, for a number of reasons, many of which he himself shared.
So the desire is for a different plan at a fundamental level, different road widths, different modal splits, different building massing and so on....
You can't just let the first builder build, if you don't like what they are going to build or where or what size the road is that their development fronts, seeing as the amount of parking and all sorts of other assumptions are based on the road size etc.
****
If you don't like what's proposed, you have to freeze the process and re-start. The nature of that re-start and the criteria, process and budget could all be matters of debate.
What is not debatable is that if we go ahead w/what's on the table now..........many of us will be profoundly unhappy w/the outcome.
Moreover......... I would suggest to you that what's currently proposed will be legally contested...........not necessarily for good reasons..............but that's something for another day.
Last edited:
christiesplits
Senior Member
How does the density for McCleary compare to Villiers?
Northern Light
Superstar
Fairly similar (on public lands) with a project FSI in the range of 7.5; so far as I can tell. Relatively few of the presentations use that metric.
Northern Light
Superstar
Ok......so I promised more on McCleary........let me extract from the presentation to the Waterfront DRP:
* note that this is the July presentation. Alex mentions a meeting from last week, the agenda for which does not show the district materials as being discussed, but rather a series of discrete parcels/projects.
From: https://www.waterfrontoronto.ca/sit...ecinct-Plan_Stage2_Preliminary_Draft_Plan.pdf
Let me also offer up the minutes of the July meeting which are now public:
www.waterfrontoronto.ca
Lets start with the street grid and associated ROW widths.
Lets stop for a moment and note a couple of things:
1) ROW is not curb to curb, but building face to building face. It includes the car-travel lanes, but also cycle tracks and sidewalks and any landscaping within boulevards.
2) You'll see little minus signs above followed by a percentage. This reflects how much smaller the ROW is now proposed to be vs the first iteration of the plan.
So, now lets look at the street concepts:
Ok, lets stop there for a moment for some more notes.
1) Where you see the same street in the images above, in more than one image, you should generally read the top or first image for a street as the original iteration, and the one below as the current version. In one case you will see three images for future E-W street, the first is the original and 2 and 3 represent options in the current iteration.
*****
In this section I will comment only on the ROWs themselves and not the associated built-form.
1) The only road I'm unhappy with here on a curb to curb basis is Villliers because of the uninterrupted third (parking) lane. I do appreciate the need for some surface loading functions, pickup/drop-off etc. But I would prefer some intermittence over a continuous third lane.
2) The E-W road reads a very wide, but the bulk of that space is to allow for biowales (the landscaped area on the right of the image above which would allow the conveyance of storm water on the surface through wet-loving planting beds) We can narrow this ROW, but we would likely lose that ecological function. I"m open on this point, but we need to keep it mind as a trade-off.
****
Next - Built Form.
Here I will have to ask anyone who wants to review all the options to follow the links I provided up top, because the presentation involved multiple different configurations and it would take me too long and too many posts to show them all. I will provide the Central Park based one as an example:
So, one of Alex's critiques is that he's not a fan of the tower on podium model and would like to see less of that.
I've discussed in the past why having a tower w/no podium is problematic around issues of wind and human-scale. Its not that it isn't do-able, but it requires some very specific architectural treatments to make it work.
The alternative is dense midrise and low-rise, which I'm broadly happy to favour.......but the argument advanced here is that the plan has insufficient granularity and blocks that are too large.
One important consideration here is whether you consider those mid-block pedestrian connections to divide blocks, or whether you want more 'streets' albeit fairly narrow ones.
I would argue that podiums here are already generally too high for the associated road widths, with the exception of those fronting Lakeshore and Commissioners, where greater podium heights can work due to exceptional road width and further open space.
I'm not crazy about what's above.......but I think the trade-offs here are more complex than some are inclined to admit.
For instance, we can break up the largest blocks above into to two and create a new connection or narrow road in between. But if you do so, you now have to concern yourself with having a lower building-face height against the new connection. You also need to ponder the likely wind impacts with a narrow funnel design for a pedestrian mews or the like.
Once again, this is very do-able, but its also a very big re-think and one, that I would argue slashes total density.
This is the challenge of competing mandates.
Did you want Toronto Green Standard 4.0.? Best environmental practice on biodiversity, native plants and natural storm water solutions? Great, these are most easily achieved in a low to mid-rise configuration. Hirise developments are more inefficient on heat and cooling loss, more carbon-intensive to build and produce higher, more intense volumes of storm water (its not just the water on the roof, but what's runs down the side of 40 storeys).
Want everyone to take transit, where's the employment function? Where are the supermarkets? Where's the subway or commuter rail station within a 500M walk of every front door?
Oh.....yeah.
Its very hard to be all things to all people and to try to solve every social ill in one location.
Generally it leads to a lot of unhappy stakeholders.
Do I think we've got this right? No.
Do I think we can do better? Yes
Do I think we can make everyone happy...............? Uh uh.........
****
A couple of wrap-up notes:
1) Part of the panel's issues, so far as I can discern is that there multiple private lands proposals overlapping the public ones, such as 685 Lakeshore.
Each have their own developer, planners, and architects and its not at all clear that these proposals play well into the City's ideas, whether one likes those or not.
2) I agree with starting over...........but lets keep in mind this will set any process to build here back a minimum of two years, depending on how big the overhaul is; and what process is undertaken to affect it.
I'm not sure what means the City/WT has to address having privately owned parcels /their owners cooperate with an over-arching vision, other than buying them out; or possibly offering land swaps.
3) A design competition is great, but we have to set the parameters correctly and understand we will not get everything in one package. If we're asking privately developed housing to cover the cost of building affordable housing out of their own project budgets, they can and will ask for greater height and density. That's a viable choice, but makes the more intimately scaled neighbourhoods one pictures in Europe out of reach here. To achieve those, the government will have to cover the tab for affordable housing.
Likewise, a transit-friendly area here simply requires better transit and connectivity than what is currently contemplated. This is especially true the further east you get in the Portlands. Where connectivity to the north across Lakeshore is poor, and there isn't even any E-W transit until Queen Street. The O/L as one heads east will be no closer than the Queen Station, which is a considerable distance away, and awkward to reach.
The suggestion that an LRT on Broadview will help one reach ultra-high modal splits for transit just doesn't strike me as correct for an area at the base of two, non-tolled highways, and several kms from a major employment zone.
Again, addressable......but a very tall order.
* note that this is the July presentation. Alex mentions a meeting from last week, the agenda for which does not show the district materials as being discussed, but rather a series of discrete parcels/projects.
From: https://www.waterfrontoronto.ca/sit...ecinct-Plan_Stage2_Preliminary_Draft_Plan.pdf
Let me also offer up the minutes of the July meeting which are now public:
Design Review Panel Meeting Minutes - July 24, 2024 | Waterfront Toronto
Lets start with the street grid and associated ROW widths.
Lets stop for a moment and note a couple of things:
1) ROW is not curb to curb, but building face to building face. It includes the car-travel lanes, but also cycle tracks and sidewalks and any landscaping within boulevards.
2) You'll see little minus signs above followed by a percentage. This reflects how much smaller the ROW is now proposed to be vs the first iteration of the plan.
So, now lets look at the street concepts:
Ok, lets stop there for a moment for some more notes.
1) Where you see the same street in the images above, in more than one image, you should generally read the top or first image for a street as the original iteration, and the one below as the current version. In one case you will see three images for future E-W street, the first is the original and 2 and 3 represent options in the current iteration.
*****
In this section I will comment only on the ROWs themselves and not the associated built-form.
1) The only road I'm unhappy with here on a curb to curb basis is Villliers because of the uninterrupted third (parking) lane. I do appreciate the need for some surface loading functions, pickup/drop-off etc. But I would prefer some intermittence over a continuous third lane.
2) The E-W road reads a very wide, but the bulk of that space is to allow for biowales (the landscaped area on the right of the image above which would allow the conveyance of storm water on the surface through wet-loving planting beds) We can narrow this ROW, but we would likely lose that ecological function. I"m open on this point, but we need to keep it mind as a trade-off.
****
Next - Built Form.
Here I will have to ask anyone who wants to review all the options to follow the links I provided up top, because the presentation involved multiple different configurations and it would take me too long and too many posts to show them all. I will provide the Central Park based one as an example:
So, one of Alex's critiques is that he's not a fan of the tower on podium model and would like to see less of that.
I've discussed in the past why having a tower w/no podium is problematic around issues of wind and human-scale. Its not that it isn't do-able, but it requires some very specific architectural treatments to make it work.
The alternative is dense midrise and low-rise, which I'm broadly happy to favour.......but the argument advanced here is that the plan has insufficient granularity and blocks that are too large.
One important consideration here is whether you consider those mid-block pedestrian connections to divide blocks, or whether you want more 'streets' albeit fairly narrow ones.
I would argue that podiums here are already generally too high for the associated road widths, with the exception of those fronting Lakeshore and Commissioners, where greater podium heights can work due to exceptional road width and further open space.
I'm not crazy about what's above.......but I think the trade-offs here are more complex than some are inclined to admit.
For instance, we can break up the largest blocks above into to two and create a new connection or narrow road in between. But if you do so, you now have to concern yourself with having a lower building-face height against the new connection. You also need to ponder the likely wind impacts with a narrow funnel design for a pedestrian mews or the like.
Once again, this is very do-able, but its also a very big re-think and one, that I would argue slashes total density.
This is the challenge of competing mandates.
Did you want Toronto Green Standard 4.0.? Best environmental practice on biodiversity, native plants and natural storm water solutions? Great, these are most easily achieved in a low to mid-rise configuration. Hirise developments are more inefficient on heat and cooling loss, more carbon-intensive to build and produce higher, more intense volumes of storm water (its not just the water on the roof, but what's runs down the side of 40 storeys).
Want everyone to take transit, where's the employment function? Where are the supermarkets? Where's the subway or commuter rail station within a 500M walk of every front door?
Oh.....yeah.
Its very hard to be all things to all people and to try to solve every social ill in one location.
Generally it leads to a lot of unhappy stakeholders.
Do I think we've got this right? No.
Do I think we can do better? Yes
Do I think we can make everyone happy...............? Uh uh.........
****
A couple of wrap-up notes:
1) Part of the panel's issues, so far as I can discern is that there multiple private lands proposals overlapping the public ones, such as 685 Lakeshore.
Each have their own developer, planners, and architects and its not at all clear that these proposals play well into the City's ideas, whether one likes those or not.
2) I agree with starting over...........but lets keep in mind this will set any process to build here back a minimum of two years, depending on how big the overhaul is; and what process is undertaken to affect it.
I'm not sure what means the City/WT has to address having privately owned parcels /their owners cooperate with an over-arching vision, other than buying them out; or possibly offering land swaps.
3) A design competition is great, but we have to set the parameters correctly and understand we will not get everything in one package. If we're asking privately developed housing to cover the cost of building affordable housing out of their own project budgets, they can and will ask for greater height and density. That's a viable choice, but makes the more intimately scaled neighbourhoods one pictures in Europe out of reach here. To achieve those, the government will have to cover the tab for affordable housing.
Likewise, a transit-friendly area here simply requires better transit and connectivity than what is currently contemplated. This is especially true the further east you get in the Portlands. Where connectivity to the north across Lakeshore is poor, and there isn't even any E-W transit until Queen Street. The O/L as one heads east will be no closer than the Queen Station, which is a considerable distance away, and awkward to reach.
The suggestion that an LRT on Broadview will help one reach ultra-high modal splits for transit just doesn't strike me as correct for an area at the base of two, non-tolled highways, and several kms from a major employment zone.
Again, addressable......but a very tall order.
Last edited:
AlexBozikovic
Active Member
Here are three screenshots from last week’s presentations by the city, and one of the private proponents.
@Northern Light you’re correct; my piece has an error, which has now been fixed.
There are multiple interwoven problems with the urban design here.
The basic strategy has been to impose tower and podium, but allow the podium and towers to both become taller, while keeping several of the streets very wide. (Saulter remains 31m ROW.) It’s tower and podium on steroids, and all the podium of the private buildings include so-called production space, which is being shown as film studio black boxes, self storage or a Home Depot.
No part of this makes sense.
If the city is going to insist on film production related uses, which are probably not economical, those should be collected into one site and probably into one building.
loading and servicing should be integrated between buildings, reducing the presence of vehicles on the ground plane. The city has continuous ownership over 60% of this neighbourhood. Surely there is a way to make that happen at least in part.
The number of streets, and the universal presence of cars is a major strategic error. Vehicles here, as at Villiers, will need to be aggressively discouraged. It’s true that this is slightly out-of-the-way, yet it’s also walking distance to what will be one of the most important transit stations in the region. There’s the transportation strategy: walk to East Harbour. It’s not ideal, but it’s still better than 95% of the GTHA. Don’t like it? Don’t move here.
Every aspect of this project should incentivize active and mass transit and disincentive vehicle use. The urban design needs to shape the behaviour of residents, not respond to it.
@Northern Light you’re correct; my piece has an error, which has now been fixed.
There are multiple interwoven problems with the urban design here.
The basic strategy has been to impose tower and podium, but allow the podium and towers to both become taller, while keeping several of the streets very wide. (Saulter remains 31m ROW.) It’s tower and podium on steroids, and all the podium of the private buildings include so-called production space, which is being shown as film studio black boxes, self storage or a Home Depot.
No part of this makes sense.
If the city is going to insist on film production related uses, which are probably not economical, those should be collected into one site and probably into one building.
loading and servicing should be integrated between buildings, reducing the presence of vehicles on the ground plane. The city has continuous ownership over 60% of this neighbourhood. Surely there is a way to make that happen at least in part.
The number of streets, and the universal presence of cars is a major strategic error. Vehicles here, as at Villiers, will need to be aggressively discouraged. It’s true that this is slightly out-of-the-way, yet it’s also walking distance to what will be one of the most important transit stations in the region. There’s the transportation strategy: walk to East Harbour. It’s not ideal, but it’s still better than 95% of the GTHA. Don’t like it? Don’t move here.
Every aspect of this project should incentivize active and mass transit and disincentive vehicle use. The urban design needs to shape the behaviour of residents, not respond to it.
Attachments
Last edited:
Northern Light
Superstar
Thank you.
Glad its fixed.
Agreed.
100% agreed. Saulter is excessive here. Something I would like to hear on the film issue is:
1) This is seemingly to allow outdoor location/streeter shoots. If so, how much of that activity is actually taking place within this district now (not within buildings, but outside them, in the public ROW? (point being storage of filming equipment and trailers can be done indoors, above or below grade, if that were the purpose (just parking equipment) then I would describe the use as entirely incompatible with a well designed neighbourhood.
2) While some vehicles are necessary to location shoots, were there a need/desire to accommodate for this, could any of the following be explored:
a) (Dedicated cable/conduit and power/generation for purpose within a utility conduit under the road), and/or within an adjacent building, for purpose.)
b) could a single dedicated rear-laneway be provided for purpose with parking for said vehicles, and a narrow, adjacent lane, possibly even with controlled (or controllable) access.
To your point, making multiple roads substantially wider for this use is not reasonable.
We agree on Villiers.
I also get/support your desire here........but I will say, there's a reason all sorts of new buildings across the City are subject to perpetual motions to exclude them from permit parking.
Notwithstanding that parking has been reduced and/or eliminated, and that many buildings are located close to rapid transit, indeed, some immediately adjacent to stations, we still see people move in
who want parking and either can't get it on site, or can't get it a a price they are willing to pay.
Now, lets admit, a portion of this problem is related to grossly under-priced permit parkng and on-street parking which makes the program and parking broadly more attractive than it should be........
Additionally, many people do require/desire access to a car, and the City's ongoing restrictions to carsharing, (limiting the number of floating permits, restricting access to permit parking streets, grossly over-charging for reserved on-street spaces fo same) all make that option less attractive and private car ownership moreso by default.
But, this is the world we live in........I wish it were otherwise............... and would welcome change.
I do think its important for design to inspire and lead....... but I do think the shortcomings here will it make it difficult to attract the car-less by choice, or greatly car reduced buyer/renter.
If that is your preference, and it remains a small portion of the GTA audience, particularly among those that can afford market housing, I think you're more likely to choose to live along a subway line or closer to downtown than here.
****
For all of that, we both agree that not only could better be done here (and should) lest we waste the opportunity, we also need a cohesive approach, and one from a team that is able to pitch better and more inspired solutions.
You're not going to change people with ideas that fall flat, both from the cold hard math perspective, but also from the inspired design perspective.
Last edited:
flonicky
Senior Member
Saulter, current state looking south:
Trail will duck away from traffic briefly at McLeary Park.
View looking east at Mayfair Club.
Trail will duck away from traffic briefly at McLeary Park.
View looking east at Mayfair Club.
christiesplits
Senior Member
Great analysis @AlexBozikovic and @Northern Light.
The large building footprints are my biggest worry. While I'm generally happy with the Canary District, the large and wide massing at times make the buildings and street feel sterile and institutional. A break up of the size and shape of buildings, particularly at the street level, would do wonders for both McCleary and Villiers/Ookeemin Minising.
I'll continue to monitor the McCleary District's relationship with the nearby film studios. Given the nature of film production facilities (big, cavernous, lots of parking and truck traffic), it will be tricky to balance industry needs with a fledgling neighbourhood. I'm not a proponent of relocating the film studios, given the area's history of film production and current cluster of pre/post production industries in the Riverside/Leslieville area.
The large building footprints are my biggest worry. While I'm generally happy with the Canary District, the large and wide massing at times make the buildings and street feel sterile and institutional. A break up of the size and shape of buildings, particularly at the street level, would do wonders for both McCleary and Villiers/Ookeemin Minising.
I'll continue to monitor the McCleary District's relationship with the nearby film studios. Given the nature of film production facilities (big, cavernous, lots of parking and truck traffic), it will be tricky to balance industry needs with a fledgling neighbourhood. I'm not a proponent of relocating the film studios, given the area's history of film production and current cluster of pre/post production industries in the Riverside/Leslieville area.
Last edited:
rdaner
Senior Member
My only comment is that I’m glad to see that there is parkland proposed around the Transfer Station as there was some doubt about its future as an arts venue.