alexanderglista said:
I doubt Metrolinx will okay the proposed park cantilevered over the train tracks. That idea goes against their Bathurst North GO Station idea/plan.
View attachment 22733
Click to expand...

Can you link to a larger version of this image or, if possible, the whole document?

Also, I don't believe this has yet been posted.

photo 2.jpg
 

Attachments

  • photo 2.jpg
    photo 2.jpg
    92.8 KB · Views: 1,303
ProjectEnd said:
Can you link to a larger version of this image or, if possible, the whole document?

Also, I don't believe this has yet been posted.
Click to expand...

Where was that picture taken?
Is there an on-line version?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
CITY OF TORONTO DESIGN REVIEW PANEL
AGENDA: MEETING 4- April 14, 2014
City Hall, 100 Queen Street West, Committee Room 2

1:30 pm “The Wellâ€, project introduction
mixed-use development bounded by Wellington, Spadina and Front Streets
OPA and Rezoning Application
Diamond Corp.
Presentations:
Dan Nicholson, Community Planning; James Parakh, Urban Design
David Pontarini, Hariri Pontarini Architects
http://www1.toronto.ca/City Of Toronto/City Planning/Urban Design/Files/pdf/DRP/APRIL DRP Agenda.pdf
 
The Well.jpg

Quick overlay....
 

Attachments

  • The Well.jpg
    The Well.jpg
    101.6 KB · Views: 1,225
Why does this concept show internal streets terminating at street trees and on-street parking lanes along Front? Who did they put on quality control!
 
Well obviously if they are intended to be pedestrian connections that is different, but to me the plan doesn't communicate that very well. I was of the impression these were internal roadways. For instance, why would a pedestrian mews require a curb return at intersections?
 
Last edited:
skorji said:
Well obviously if they are intended to be pedestrian connections that is different, but to me the plan doesn't communicate that very well. I was of the impression these were internal roadways. For instance, why would a pedestrian mews require a curb return at intersections?
Click to expand...

Internal streets are pedestrian-oriented, but presumably emergency vehicles still need to navigate them. From the UT article when the proposal was unveiled:

Vehicular access to the site would be restricted to only a couple of entry/exit points to underground garages. Vehicles would not move through the site at ground level, which would be left to pedestrians and bicyclists.
Click to expand...
 
skorji said:
Well obviously if they are intended to be pedestrian connections that is different, but to me the plan doesn't communicate that very well. I was of the impression these were internal roadways. For instance, why would a pedestrian mews require a curb return at intersections?
Click to expand...

Some of the streets are for pedestrians. Some are for cars. The plan communicates both of these things just fine.
 
adHominem, thank you for that information. Makes sense in light of required emergency vehicle access. ProjectEnd, that is a matter of opinion. I review plans on a daily basis and didn't think it was clearly communicated. I'm entitled to that. Thank you.
 
skorji said:
adHominem, thank you for that information. Makes sense in light of required emergency vehicle access. ProjectEnd, that is a matter of opinion. I review plans on a daily basis and didn't think it was clearly communicated. I'm entitled to that. Thank you.
Click to expand...

Well that makes two of us. And yes, you are entitled to your opinion, no fight here.
 
Regardless, I would argue that unimpeded emergency vehicle access should be provided from Front Street if that is the intention, and I would suspect that the City would share that concern.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top