[AlexBozikovic]

This project got shredded by the design review panel, who brought the same sort of checklist approach that @Northern Light is bringing here. (Does it animate Bayview?)

It’s too bad. The proposal’s semi-public spaces are better than any Toronto has produced in the last generation. Sometimes if specific good things are against the rules, you have to ask whether the rules are any good.

 

[Northern Light]

This project got shredded by the design review panel, who brought the same sort of checklist approach that @Northern Light is bringing here. (Does it animate Bayview?)

It’s too bad. The original proposal’s semi public spaces would have been better than any Toronto has produced in the last generation. Sometimes if specific good things are against the rules, you have to ask whether the rules are any good.

View attachment 376474View attachment 376473

I don't disagree that some rules are meant to be bent; or re-thought entirely.

But your posting here does not make a persuasive case.

Can I start with all the fictional trees here that wouldn't do well in the situation imagined.

I am reasonably expert on that subject; You're not likely to get that performance out of Birch in that layout.

Lets add, where's the winter image with no greenery at all?

There are lots of issues here.

I think you're taken by something of a fantasy that isn't achievable in this location.

I'm also amused by dozens of people walking where there are no shops, nowhere to go, on private property, that won't be inviting to those who live off-site.

 

[daniel_kryz]

1) Why are there 2 under sized public parks, instead of one fully useful one?

Why do we need new parks in the first place if there's an entire protected conservation area? Add some natural trails and you've got an interesting park. Public spaces were already included, so that checks the need for urban places. Not every development needs a park... sometimes a conservation area can be just that... especially when the majority of the site is left in its natural state.

2) What the hell is with the shape on the primary, northern park? it feels very much like something done w/leftover land after everything else was sited.

I definitely agree, but Markee is a special kind of company that builds affordable housing. If it can't meet a certain amount of density, then their model doesn't work.

3) I'm all for reducing car dependence, and I'm all for thin, well-dieted roadways. But I thought we learned a long time ago that roads should always be public (basically City policy); and that communities should not feel

Roads should be public, but the only reason they want a private road is so that they can have more on-street parking to avoid building more than one level of underground parking... which is financially infeasible for them. The issue probably has to do with the city's policies for parking on public streets. That is the city's problem, and the current layout with the large roundabout is just absurd as it removes a lot of greenery, generally will look bad, cuts off a street and therefore makes it less useable, and makes the area more car-oriented. I agree that all streets should look and feel public, but that is already addressed and they are committed to building one that is identical to a public street.

Most POPs are a worthless idea, nix it

Perhaps the idea of privately-owned public spaces is bad, but that is again the city's problem because they would rather shift the costs of maintenance onto the property owner.

Downtown or at a place like Canada Square, “animate the public streets” is the right approach. In a suburban site like this, with limited pedestrian traffic, a more mazy and intimate set of spaces could be beautiful.

Just like in the Netherlands!

I'm also amused by dozens of people walking where there are no shops, nowhere to go, on private property, that won't be inviting to those who live off-site.

That's a good point and I'm sure that a few shops can be added here, but this is a university campus so that definitely adds to the people walking here.

 

[HousingNowTO]

Keesmaat interview about Tyndale project & Markee in the last 8-minutes of this TVO show....

TVO Today | Current Affairs Journalism, Documentaries and Podcasts

www.tvo.org

 

[Northern Light]

Keesmaat interview about Tyndale project & Markee in the last 8-minutes of this TVO show....

TVO Today | Current Affairs Journalism, Documentaries and Podcasts

www.tvo.org

Good clip, though she wildly mis-states the stat on rent vs salary.

I wish someone had noticed that and given her a chance to say it correctly.

 

[Northern Light]

Why do we need new parks in the first place if there's an entire protected conservation area? Add some natural trails and you've got an interesting park. Public spaces were already included, so that checks the need for urban places. Not every development needs a park... sometimes a conservation area can be just that... especially when the majority of the site is left in its natural state.

There are several problems with this statement.

First, there is no Conservation Area here.

There are natural ravine lands, though this is one of the rare cases in the City, outside of golf courses, where those are mostly privately owned.

That is not a public park by definition.

***

But further than that, while I love natural spaces, much moreso than sports fields or playgrounds on a personal level, I recognize the value of the latter to people.
Those are not permitted in ravine areas, and not viable on slopes anyways.

I definitely agree, but Markee is a special kind of company that builds affordable housing. If it can't meet a certain amount of density, then their model doesn't work.

I like Keesmaat and Markee looks promising (full judgment pending execution).

That said; I don't recall anyone advocating for a lower density here (except for some obnoxious locals) LOL

I have no problem with them adding a couple of floors here or there. The issue is spatial arrangement on the site.

Roads should be public, but the only reason they want a private road is so that they can have more on-street parking to avoid building more than one level of underground parking... which is financially infeasible for them. The issue probably has to do with the city's policies for parking on public streets. That is the city's problem, and the current layout with the large roundabout is just absurd as it removes a lot of greenery, generally will look bad, cuts off a street and therefore makes it less useable, and makes the area more car-oriented. I agree that all streets should look and feel public, but that is already addressed and they are committed to building one that is identical to a public street.

If more of the density were located closer to Bayview, (and transit) and if there were a stronger retail component, particularly a supermarket along Bayview, it might be possible to plan for less parking, which would, I contend
be a better solution to the parking problem than private streets.

 

[TJ O'Pootertoot]

There are several problems with this statement.

First, there is no Conservation Area here.

There are natural ravine lands, though this is one of the rare cases in the City, outside of golf courses, where those are mostly privately owned.

That is not a public park by definition.

***

I think there are some reasonable points here on both sides, though I'm not sure of the import of animating Bayview, which has a very suburban character for its entire length, and which is not likely to change much. But without an internal mix of uses, that's obviously a problem; and perhaps it makes sense to put some retail fronting the main street, to anchor the site.

As to the parklands, the publicly owned part of the ravine is very close; I've biked that trail a lot. I admit it's hard to see because of the trees but...

You can see the East Don Trail (which continues all the way to Shepard) on the right side, starting at Bestview Avenue and then going down into the ravine, then under Cummer. That's a paved path but there are "informal" paths that branch off, including past Tyndale, out to Bayview via Garnier. That is part of the Toronto parks system, exclusive of the lands owned by Gates of Bayview and Tyndale itself. But, yes, clearly this it not a park, per se.

 

[WislaHD]

I think there are some reasonable points here on both sides, though I'm not sure of the import of animating Bayview, which has a very suburban character for its entire length, and which is not likely to change much. But without an internal mix of uses, that's obviously a problem; and perhaps it makes sense to put some retail fronting the main street, to anchor the site.

I feel like there should be push-back on this point.

Yes it is suburban character, but it is also an arterial road with a frequent bus service with good access to a variety of public and commercial amenities and services.

I'm not advocating putting high-rise towers on this stretch of Bayview, but if it isn't at least densifying into midrise built-form, then we are failing from a housing perspective. There is no reason that those houses fronting onto Bayview couldn't be assembled and redeveloped into the mid-rise densities we see in other parts of the city.

Specifically for the Tyndale site, I wouldn't oppose seeing the Bayview frontage at even higher densities than what has been proposed.

 

[TJ O'Pootertoot]

I'm not advocating putting high-rise towers on this stretch of Bayview, but if it isn't at least densifying into midrise built-form, then we are failing from a housing perspective. There is no reason that those houses fronting onto Bayview couldn't be assembled and redeveloped into the mid-rise densities we see in other parts of the city.

Yeah, I agree and think this is fair. They actually threw up a nice little midrise south of Cummer, where there used to be a gas station.
The way Bayview is, you can't go crazy but I think there is room to get something a bit more intensive there and scale back into the development.
Maybe you can get a bit of a similar framing side of Bayview eventually (there is a shelter and a few other larger lots hidden among the suburban fabric on the west side)... But No matter what else may happen on Bayview in the coming years, this is clearly an unusually large site so the opportunities should be explored.

 

[daniel_kryz]

But further than that, while I love natural spaces, much moreso than sports fields or playgrounds on a personal level, I recognize the value of the latter to people.
Those are not permitted in ravine areas, and not viable on slopes anyways.

The Don Valley is basically a collection of large parks, all in a ravine. The fact that private developments can't do the same (without destroying nature, of course) is weird. I would allow natural parks to be built, unless it significantly harmful to wildlife or a certain natural state.
I can see that there is a small hill on the very west of the ravine but the rest seems flat to me. I might be wrong.

I like Keesmaat and Markee looks promising (full judgment pending execution).

That said; I don't recall anyone advocating for a lower density here (except for some obnoxious locals) LOL

I have no problem with them adding a couple of floors here or there. The issue is spatial arrangement on the site.

True.

If more of the density were located closer to Bayview, (and transit) and if there were a stronger retail component, particularly a supermarket along Bayview, it might be possible to plan for less parking, which would, I contend
be a better solution to the parking problem than private streets.

1. It would then need much higher buildings on Bayview.
2. I would agree with a Euro-style smaller market and that certainly would reduce the amount of car trips. If we build a larger store, that would mean we would need to accommodate more people travelling from further away; meaning, a need for greater car parking.
3. I also don't like the on-street parking solution but a) some people would want to travel to places that are inaccessible unless you have a car and b) it would be infeasible for a company like Markee to add a second parking garage level. That's why I'm guessing they need a private street so they can control the amount of parking on them. The city wanted to make it public, so their concession was to split it into two... therefore creating that horrendous roundabout. Planners need to have some flexibility in unusual situations so long as it fits the intent of their policies. Otherwise, they risk turning unique AND appropriate projects into dirt.

 

[Northern Light]

The Don Valley is basically a collection of large parks, all in a ravine. The fact that private developments can't do the same (without destroying nature, of course) is weird. I would allow natural parks to be built, unless it significantly harmful to wildlife or a certain natural state.
I can see that there is a small hill on the very west of the ravine but the rest seems flat to me. I might be wrong.

A few items here.

1) You can't count private greenspace as public greenspace; to be a park, the site must be accessible to everyone, in theory, in perpetuity.
A requirement of any public park is that it must have access from a public road (ie. you can't cross private property to get to a public space, otherwise the private owner could refuse you entry.)
There are ways of tweaking at this, in terms of POPS and Easements, but fundamentally they just aren't the same thing.

*****

2) Under currently policy, you can't not put any lighting in a ravine, as that is harmful to wildlife, both noctural and diurnal. You can't have a Dogs-off-Leash area, as the dogs pose a danger and their scent alone is an issue for nearby wildlife, never mind the noise of lots of dogs yapping. Most recreational amenities are prohibited because mowed grass hampers biodiversity and eliminates habitat.

So a ravine park cannot serve the same function as a tableland park where one can have a playground with lights, sports fields, a DOLA, or Community Garden (also prohibited in ravines)

You may note that some of things I'm describing as prohibited do exist in some ravine parks; that's true, because they were made that way before current environmental rules came into force.
The City is generally reluctant to remove amenities already in place; if only because they would then have to establish a new park nearby to replace them.

They view those exceptions as 'grandfathered'.

****

Finally, as to the slope, its a bit more than ya think.

These are the topography lines behind the buildings:

The closer the lines, the steeper the incline.

Total drop from the buildings to the valley floor is about 16M or 50 feet.

 

[daniel_kryz]

1) You can't count private greenspace as public greenspace; to be a park, the site must be accessible to everyone, in theory, in perpetuity.
A requirement of any public park is that it must have access from a public road (ie. you can't cross private property to get to a public space, otherwise the private owner could refuse you entry.)
There are ways of tweaking at this, in terms of POPS and Easements, but fundamentally they just aren't the same thing.

Can't the city just sign an agreement with the developer that allows public access? Like in POPS (Privately-Owned Publicly Accessible Spaces). Maintenance and provision of security is an issue, but clearly public access can be allowed in privately-owned spaces.

2) Under currently policy, you can't not put any lighting in a ravine, as that is harmful to wildlife, both noctural and diurnal. You can't have a Dogs-off-Leash area, as the dogs pose a danger and their scent alone is an issue for nearby wildlife, never mind the noise of lots of dogs yapping. Most recreational amenities are prohibited because mowed grass hampers biodiversity and eliminates habitat.

So a ravine park cannot serve the same function as a tableland park where one can have a playground with lights, sports fields, a DOLA, or Community Garden (also prohibited in ravines)

You may note that some of things I'm describing as prohibited do exist in some ravine parks; that's true, because they were made that way before current environmental rules came into force.
The City is generally reluctant to remove amenities already in place; if only because they would then have to establish a new park nearby to replace them.

They view those exceptions as 'grandfathered'.

Thanks, I didn't know that. Despite that, we can still have a natural parks with no lighting, or do you think it's necessary to have an urban park? If so, why? Remember that we already had public places in the previous plan, some of them indistinguishable from parks. On top of that, the streetscapes provided great places for people to stroll around their neighbourhood.

Also, shouldn't we have a ravine that isn't just grass? There is nothing natural about the ravine, except to protect from flooding.

Finally, as to the slope, its a bit more than ya think.

These are the topography lines behind the buildings:

The closer the lines, the steeper the incline.

Total drop from the buildings to the valley floor is about 16M or 50 feet.

Thank you very much for the information and I appreciate you showing the topography. Now I have a more complete understanding of this site.

 

[Northern Light]

Can't the city just sign an agreement with the developer that allows public access? Like in POPS (Privately-Owned Publicly Accessible Spaces). Maintenance and provision of security is an issue, but clearly public access can be allowed in privately-owned spaces.

As I said, through the use of easements or an S. 37 agreement is it is possible, in theory to secure something roughly similar to a park; but there are just limitations.

For instance, who provides non-police security? If its private property, its the owner. How do you ensure there is some security/oversight, while also ensuring public access w/o a lot of hassle mixing private and public interest?

Also, the private owner is responsible for maintenance and programming (if any); who ensures they live up to that? Its just very complicated. It can be done; but it can't fulfill the parks requirements under policy; and I really don't think you can
get around that; and even if you could, I'm not sure how administratively taxing it would be for everyone involved.

do you think it's necessary to have an urban park? If so, why?

Well, in short, Yes, I do think its necessary. Many people (and their children) want them to play team sports, so they require soccer fields or baseball diamonds or cricket pitches etc.

As the City's population increases, there is little extra capacity at the existing facilities, so more need to be built, and they can't be built in ravines.

Playgrounds are a more interesting question. I'm a big believer in un-structured play. But even if you're ok w/kids not having swings or a slide, you want them to have place to play 'Tag;' or to do somersaults or
or just to talk to other kids, the middle of a forest is not ideal; the middle of a steep hill, arguably unworkable and maybe unsafe.

Also, shouldn't we have a ravine that isn't just grass? There is nothing natural about the ravine, except to protect from flooding.

I'm not sure I understand this statement. The ravines are home to lots of wildlife, in Toronto, Beavers, Foxes, Rabbits, Owls, Deer, Chipmunks, Mink, a wide variety of Birds amongst others.

Those species require places to nest, and den, they need tree cover and hills they can dig holes into, they also need food sources, like raspberry plants, wild strawberry, elderberry, chokecherry etc.
Very few wild animals eat Kentucky Blue Grass (which is what most 'sod' is in Toronto.

Thank you very much for the information and I appreciate you showing the topography. Now I have a more complete understanding of this site.

You're quite welcome.

 

[daniel_kryz]

I'm not sure I understand this statement.

I'm referring to this area.

 

[Northern Light]

I'm referring to this area.

View attachment 379607

Right, so that area is grass now, because it's privately owned.

Were it transferred to public agencies (likely the TRCA) there would almost certainly be a directive to naturalize it and forest it, in accordance w/policy.

If it remains private, then it will likely stay as it is; but it will also be private.

Edit to add, it occurs to me that others may not be clear on what is or is not 'ravine' in a legalistic policy discussion.
The TRCA has a definition which the City also uses; which is 'Stable top of bank/slope'.
What the this means in practice is that the ravine, policy-wise, is everything up to the very top of the hill. (it actually varies slightly, but there's some complex formula involved and that's the closest easy explanation I can manage)
Then, the TRCA requires a 10M buffer (33 ft) from the stable top of bank. This is both to protect from erosion, but also to allow an easy to walk path in nature for wildlife (they like walking on flat ground too).
Worth saying, in the Oak Ridges Moraine, the requirement is for a 30M buffer (100ft), which is what the TRCA wanted in the City but decided was impractical.