Thanks for informative post! I think that the park shadows are unacceptable and I'm happy to see a push for the conveyance of the below top-of-bank area to the TRCA. I'm guessing that, with public ownership, there would be a re-naturalization of the grassy area.
On the other hand, could you explain why we need all buildings to front on public streets? I might be missing something, but what if there's a way to do things differently without creating a desolate tower-in-the-park layout? If those streets are replaced with pedestrian mews and squares, and have many amenities that create vibrancy then what's the problem? The only issue I see is that circulation isn't built around cars, which is a good thing!
There are several reasons that the City strongly prefers buildings front public roads.
The first is to avoid any semblance of a 'Gated Community'. There is a desire to have area be welcoming, and excluding private back yards/amenities etc, for the public to have an unambiguous right of entry to a building or neighbourhood.
A second reason is ease of access for emergency services and for other city agencies. Gates aside, areas not easily reachable by emergency vehicles and/or not easy to navigate (where is 42 private mews anyway?) can cause issues.
One way of thinking of it is a private apartment or condominium today; police have no general right to patrol, or enter beyond a front lobby. This can impair access, and is often an issue with buildings that are less safe.
Obviously, one doesn't anticipate that as an issue in a progressive, modern build.............of course, at one point, St. Jamestown was considered just that.
The move in redeveloping Regent Park and Lawrence Heights has been to open up those communities to public roads , and broader community access. The previous concepts which while not car-free, were certainly car-reduced, but were not considered successes.
Of course, neither of those communities were mixed income; but St. Jamestown was solidly middle class when it was first built, featuring an outdoor pool, and tennis courts and was seen as a great place to rent in your 20s.......
But then things changed, landlords didn't maintain the property, security was lax, the pool was closed.....etc etc.
The City is very suspicious of that design approach.
I think it's perfectly fine to think of shared streets, car-reduced streets; and even pedestrian-only streets that communities can be designed around; the issue isn't that it's car-reduced/free, the issue is who owns and maintains the space; and is it inviting to the general public.
Private community spaces, even when nominally open to the public can have that access restricted by private security; security whose discretion may not always be used wisely.
That's the essence of the objection.
I think we can absolutely build more pedestrian-centric communities, but we need to do so within a context of the public realm.
*****
I hasted to add, the community as laid out does not bring any significant retail to Bayview, and absent local retail options, the community will not be very walkable.
