[AlvinofDiaspar]

My point is that this is a highly successful urban street that should be a model for others. Having this proposed scale of massing pressing right up against Markham and looming over the old Victorians isn't good design IMO. It's not sensitive to the existing built form.

Also - some of the old homes on Markham are being torn down needlessly as part of this proposed development.

But at the same time, why shouldn't we touch Markham Street? It's right by a subway station and is maintaining 2s built form and cramming growth into downtown proper the best way to grow the city? Moving forward I think we need to rethink the attitude of treating low rise neighbourhood as sarcosanct by default.

AoD

 

[CML]

Because it's one of the more unique and successful streets in the city. There are very few which have its character and that historical character is worth preserving. The south side of Elm St downtown is maybe one (inferior) example but there are relatively few examples.

I'm not arguing against density. Just that there is lots of room for density on this site while at the same time preserving the character of Markham St. Seems like both could easily be accomplished here.

 

[ksun]

But at the same time, why shouldn't we touch Markham Street? It's right by a subway station and is maintaining 2s built form and cramming growth into downtown proper the best way to grow the city? Moving forward I think we need to rethink the attitude of treating low rise neighbourhood as sarcosanct by default.

AoD

I suggested something like this before but every time was stricken down immediately because that "would ruin the character and history of the neighbourhood".

It is still puzzling to me that so many areas within 200 meters to TTC subway stations have nothing but 2s homes, and that's not just the Annex. The entire Danforth is almost all like that. Castle Frank and DuPont stations seem in the middle of nowhere despite their very central locations. What the hell is so worth preservation near DuPont or Chester? Is it the most efficient way to make our limited number of subways stops helpful and accessible to Toronto residents? Bloor and St Clair stations are good examples of what density should be near subway stops. Eglinton and Davisville stations are adding density rapidly. But the rest are mostly among a sea of 2s homes offering walking distance access to the lucky handful of people.

In the end, what is sacrosanct? To preserve some old houses for the elite to see, or to provide ample housing stock near transit stops for the people?

 

[CML]

Markham isn't occupied by particularly high end retail. It's used frequently by students. Advocating for the street's preservation isn't an elitist argument.

Again - there is room here for density while preserving the character of the street. Honest Ed's is a huge site. Why should we not strive for both?

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Markham isn't occupied by particularly high end retail. It's used frequently by students. Advocating for the street's preservation isn't an elitist argument.

Again - there is room here for density while preserving the character of the street. Honest Ed's is a huge site. Why should we not strive for both?

It isn't about elitism though - it is about what is a reasonable level of densification along identified corridors and how far it should extend into "stable neighbourhoods". Fundamentally, why should we preserve the character of that part of the street given its' proximity to key transportation infrastructure and that the functionality of the existing site will be enhanced. This isn't just about Honest Ed - it is about the form and principles behind urban expansion in the city - and the philosophy behind the existing OP.

AoD

 

[ksun]

Markham isn't occupied by particularly high end retail. It's used frequently by students. Advocating for the street's preservation isn't an elitist argument.

Again - there is room here for density while preserving the character of the street. Honest Ed's is a huge site. Why should we not strive for both?

Agree. It should be decided on a case by case basis, but first we have to abandon this "we need to preserve 2s Victorian homes at any cost" philosophy.
Preserving a few old streets with real characters is necessary, but the city should progress with times. A lot of the current layout in central Toronto simply makes little sense. Toronto is not Paris or Vienna.

 

[CML]

I agree with you that a reasonable level of densification is warranted here given the proximity to the subway.

But if it's functionality you're concerned about, I'm sure there are ways of having a highly functional development at Bloor-Bathurst while having massing that respects the historical character of Markham.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

I agree with you that a reasonable level of densification is warranted here given the proximity to the subway.

But if it's functionality you're concerned about, I'm sure there are ways of having a highly functional development at Bloor-Bathurst while having massing that respects the historical character of Markham.

Yes, by shifting density to the rest of the site and creating a negative impact elsewhere. I don't see how the "historical character of Markham" is all that important in the grand scheme of things, especially considering the fact that the majority of the impact is confined to the northern end of the street close to Bloor and that the houses at the southern end will preserved at least in part.

AoD

 

[CML]

Yes, by shifting density to the rest of the site and creating a negative impact elsewhere. I don't see how the "historical character of Markham" is all that important in the grand scheme of things, especially considering the fact that the majority of the impact is confined to the northern end of the street close to Bloor and that the houses at the southern end will preserved at least in part.

AoD

More of the massing could be shifted to the northern and eastern ends of the site to line the major throughfares (Bloor to the north and Bathurst to the east). Don't get me wrong, I am generally in favour of this development but city staff are right to suggest that more work needs to be done to ensure that the massing is sensitively implemented to respond to the existing built form.

Adding density here is important and I'm excited about the new, but we should also preserve what's great about the old.

 

[WiddleBittyKitty]

Who is to say that the amount of density requested is just the right amount? It's possible that instead of shifting the proposed density to the north and east, that what's proposed for the north and east now is plenty, and there should simply be less to the south and west.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

More of the massing could be shifted to the northern and eastern ends of the site to line the major throughfares (Bloor to the north and Bathurst to the east). Don't get me wrong, I am generally in favour of this development but city staff are right to suggest that more work needs to be done to ensure that the massing is sensitively implemented to respond to the existing built form.

Adding density here is important and I'm excited about the new, but we should also preserve what's great about the old.

Actually I won't be in favour of that - considering the scale that is gradually being established for the Bloor and Bathurst, I don't really see the benefit of pushing density there just to change the built form elsewhere. Just because it is an avenue doesn't mean it should act a dumping ground for density from an urban design perspective. Beyond that, it is the fundamental issue isn't it - somehow we seem to put an inordinate amount of weight on respecting existing built form iff it affects low-rise residential.

Who is to say that the amount of density requested is just the right amount? It's possible that instead of shifting the proposed density to the north and east, that what's proposed for the north and east now is plenty, and there should simply be less to the south and west.

Considering the proximity to downtown and transit, I'd argue it has the right amount. If anything, it is the existing residential neighbourhood that has insufficient density - which kind of brings us back to the original complaint.

AoD

 

[W. K. Lis]

The bad news is that most cities these days would refuse to allow house conversions into retail. Which is too bad. Would like to see convenience stores or kiosks next to bus stops. Too bad. They'll force them to have parking.

 

[CML]

Yes, by shifting density to the rest of the site and creating a negative impact elsewhere. I don't see how the "historical character of Markham" is all that important in the grand scheme of things, especially considering the fact that the majority of the impact is confined to the northern end of the street close to Bloor and that the houses at the southern end will preserved at least in part.

AoD

Markham St. between Bloor and Lennox is a successful model of street building that we should be trying to replicate rather than destroy. It's unique in the city. The notion that 'because density downtown is good' doesn't address the issue regarding whether this development's impact could be more effectively mitigated.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Markham St. between Bloor and Lennox is a successful model of street building that we should be trying to replicate rather than destroy. It's unique in the city. The notion that 'because density downtown is good' doesn't address the issue regarding whether this development's impact could be more effectively mitigated.

I don't see it as that unique honestly - it was a number of residents converted into commercial uses, and this typology is extant elsewhere.

AoD

 

[P23]

The bad news is that most cities these days would refuse to allow house conversions into retail. Which is too bad. Would like to see convenience stores or kiosks next to bus stops. Too bad. They'll force them to have parking.

Toronto isn't blessed with an abundance of sidewalk space, though. The sandwich boards are annoying enough.