ChesterCopperpot said:
The TOD is going on the No Frills lot. There's nothing planned for south of the tracks yet.
Click to expand...
Missed this comment earlier and I don’t think it’s been corrected yet.

There is a Gerrard-Carlaw North and South proposal. The south proposal is for the blocks at 10 Dickens and 388 Carlaw. Looks like this.
IMG_0175.jpeg


Keep up to date on TOC’s with engageio.ca
 
Last edited:
reinventingthewheel said:
Missed this comment earlier and I don’t think it’s been corrected yet.

There is a Gerrard-Carlaw North and South proposal. The south proposal is for the blocks at 10 Dickens and 388 Carlaw. Looks like this.View attachment 543963

Keep up to date on TOC’s with engageio.ca
Click to expand...
Neat. I wonder if there's any intention to connect Dickens to Logan or Thackeray to Dundas. The current Dickens connection to Carlaw is pretty awkward
 
UtakataNoAnnex said:
View attachment 543973
Click to expand...
Did you hear about the tax hike coming to Toronto? Would you like it significantly higher?

I would like to see pictures during the construction to show how much of that cleared land will be used for the construction.

Do we have any historic pictures of the various bridges under construction over this area of the Don Valley?
 
micheal_can said:
Did you hear about the tax hike coming to Toronto? Would you like it significantly higher?
Click to expand...
I dunno, I'm not really a conservative thinker...so stuff like this doesn't really bother me in the greater scheme of things. But since you're asking, depending whether this a Thatcher like poll tax (I doubt that) where everyone has to pony up regardless of their income...then yeah, that's problematic. But if it's property tax that effect homeowners and such, gotta pay the piper for the footprint they leave, IMO.

That said...

micheal_can said:
I would like to see pictures during the construction to show how much of that cleared land will be used for the construction.

Do we have any historic pictures of the various bridges under construction over this area of the Don Valley?
Click to expand...
...and more on topic: That's not really an important question here. As I am also sure there are probably before pics of what was there...Google'foo it?

What I do think will happen when Crossing #2 is finally installed is that there will be a degree of restoration to replant the areas around the particulars of this. So yes, in the end we'll eventually and likely have it both ways. Maybe not to the degree of what was there before, the mature stuff is gone for the ages. But the literature on this seems to indicate as much...so I am not sweating as much for now despite it's large and vast area that's been starkly vapourized .

But I am glad someone asked this, because of the edge lord dichotomy that was posed by our flying racoon-that was friend has the time now to be debunked with cooler heads. /shrug
 
Last edited:
UtakataNoAnnex said:
I dunno, I'm not really a conservative thinker...so stuff like this doesn't really bother me in the greater scheme of things. But since you're asking, depending whether this a Thatcher like poll tax (I doubt that) where everyone has to pony up regardless of their income...then yeah, that's problematic. But if it's property tax that effect homeowners and such, gotta pay the piper for the footprint they leave, IMO.

That said...
Click to expand...

Toronto has some of the lowest property tax in the province.

UtakataNoAnnex said:
...and more on topic: That's not really an important question here. As I am also sure there are probably before pics of what was there...Google'foo it?

What I do think will happen when Crossing #2 is finally installed is that there will be a degree of restoration to replant the areas around the particulars of this. So yes, in the end we'll eventually and likely have it both ways. Maybe not to the degree of what was there before, the mature stuff is gone for the ages. But the literature on this seems to indicate as much...so I am not sweating as much for now despite it's large and vast area that's been starkly vapourized .

But I am glad someone asked this, because of the edge lord dichotomy that was posed by our flying racoon-that was friend has the time now to be debunked with cooler heads. /shrug
Click to expand...
It is sad to see the mature forest gone, but, maybe this space can be reinvisioned to serve the people in the area better.
 
micheal_can said:
It is sad to see the mature forest gone, but, maybe this space can be reinvisioned to serve the people in the area better.
Click to expand...
I'm pretty sure that's the long term goal along with a sustainable environment here. And what we're seeing currently is the short term pain.
 
Last edited:
NoahB said:
Look again

View attachment 543922
Click to expand...
I'm looking. I see that the only place with anything close to an urban space is a really short stretch of Carlaw which actually has buildings across the street. All other faces of the building are fully exposed, and not to some amazing vista like Lake Ontario or some impressive park, but rather an unimpressive park facing backyard fences, and Pops park and railway corridor. They could have created an urban square, consolidated the space into a more functional park space, but they chose a layout of two lesser parks and buildings in a triangle layout where two of the three sides are exposed. New Street is going to be windy and Pops park is going to be underutilised because it seems, or is, private. There are so many better ways they could have laid out this property that would have created a more urban space and more meaningful park.

TransitOrientedTowersInAPark.png
 
Last edited:
EnviroTO said:
I'm looking. I see that the only place with anything close to an urban space is a really short stretch of Carlaw which actually has buildings across the street. All other faces of the building are fully exposed, and not to some amazing vista like Lake Ontario or some impressive park, but rather an unimpressive park facing backyard fences, and Pops park and railway corridor. They could have created an urban square, consolidated the space into a more functional park space, but they chose a layout of two lesser parks and buildings in a triangle layout where two of the three sides are exposed. New Street is going to be windy and Pops park is going to be underutilised because it seems, or is, private. There are so many better ways they could have laid out this property that would have created a more urban space and more meaningful park.

View attachment 544118
Click to expand...

Let me bring back your original comment. I bolded the part where you are incorrect.
EnviroTO said:
It has a park on all sides. On no side is there a street with a street wall on both sides of the street.
Click to expand...

In the image you graciously annotated, you show that all the street frontage on Carlaw is a 'streetwall' of retail (minus the tiny plaza). On the other side is a street wall of houses that will definitely get redeveloped in the future.

The park to the north ("exposed area") is a land dedication that adds parkland to the neighborhood. It is across the street from the building. I would not count that as a 'building in the park.'

The 'POPS' to the southeast is where the OL portal will transition underground. The amount of land left for use after that has not been announced.
 
It is poorly designed. With better pedestrian environment focused design they could have created more urban streetscapes in the west side of the site and consolidated Park and POPS in the east to have a substantial park. Instead they have three disconnected parks so from many angles the buildings will look out scale and out of place... like towers in a park, not like an urban streetscape. Right now they have designed something with the urbanity of 108 Corporate Drive in Scarborough which is aiming low. The TOD south of the tracks is far more promising.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top