allengeorge said:
That’s a massive increase in studio apartments and a massive drop in 1/2 bedrooms. Shouldn’t this concern TO Planning and Council? Is this the effect of delays in the planning process - or was the first proposal never gonna get built?
Click to expand...

My guess, and it's only a guess............

Is that it is a direct result of trading down in height.

The price per ft2 is almost certainly larger on a bachelor than a 3 bedroom.

So if you can break a large unit into 2, and get more than 1/2 the price of the larger unit, per unit, you can offset the loss of profit in shaving a few floors off.
 
Northern Light said:
My guess, and it's only a guess............

Is that it is a direct result of trading down in height.
Click to expand...

Is this the tradeoff that TO Planning and Council want? Because that flies in the face of making more units for families and couples. Talk about missing the forest for the trees.
 
We could build 6-7 mini parks/squares/sports fields in the downtown tomorrow and we'd still be short a few. We sometimes have to walk 2 km to find green space not rammed with people. My old rec football team had to go all the way to Cherry Beach to find space. This is already a huge problem. I worry about how oppressive it will be when the downtown population doubles.

The City harps on about the green space deficit and how we need to increase it in lock step with development but they let lot after lot after lot slip through their fingers. The eastern part of this lot is now lost forever. Will they fail Toronto again and allow the rest to be built on as well?

Failing to set aside lots represents a PERMANENT reduction in the quality of life of downtown Toronto. Does City Planning want this to be their legacy? This is NOT something we can go back and fix later.
 
Last edited:
So 5 stories less of an uninspiring box...that might be more of a good thing than bad, IMO.
 
isaidso said:
We could build 6-7 mini parks/squares/sports fields in the downtown tomorrow and we'd still be short a few. We sometimes have to walk 2 km to find green space not rammed with people. My old rec football team had to go all the way to Cherry Beach to find space. This is already a huge problem. I worry about how oppressive it will be when the downtown population doubles.

The City harps on about the green space deficit and how we need to increase it in lock step with development but they let lot after lot after lot slip through their fingers. The eastern part of this lot is now lost forever. Will they fail Toronto again and allow the rest to be built on as well?

Failing to set aside lots represents a PERMANENT reduction in the quality of life of downtown Toronto. Does City Planning want this to be their legacy? This is NOT something we can go back and fix later.
Click to expand...
Planning cannot simply say "no building on this property, we've reserved it for a park." Why would you think they could do so?

42
 
20 Maitland and surrounding developments:

Toronto Model 05-10-21 20 Maitland.png
 
isaidso said:
We could build 6-7 mini parks/squares/sports fields in the downtown tomorrow and we'd still be short a few. We sometimes have to walk 2 km to find green space not rammed with people. My old rec football team had to go all the way to Cherry Beach to find space. This is already a huge problem. I worry about how oppressive it will be when the downtown population doubles.

The City harps on about the green space deficit and how we need to increase it in lock step with development but they let lot after lot after lot slip through their fingers. The eastern part of this lot is now lost forever. Will they fail Toronto again and allow the rest to be built on as well?

Failing to set aside lots represents a PERMANENT reduction in the quality of life of downtown Toronto. Does City Planning want this to be their legacy? This is NOT something we can go back and fix later.
Click to expand...
The Church / Wellesley area is deficient in parkland. Kathleen Wynne infamously refused to give the provincial land at Wellesley, west of Yonge, to the city for a park. But she spent hundreds of millions of dollars in penalties to cancel a natural gas plant in an attempt to buy liberal votes. See what happens to the parking lot south of Wellesley subway station. Is any politician advocating for green space there or is it destined to be another “lost opportunity”?
 
Last edited:
jmacmillan said:
The Church / Wellesley area is deficient in parkland. Kathleen Wynne infamously refused to give the provincial land at Wellesley, west of Yonge, to the city for a park. But she spent hundreds of millions of dollars in penalties to cancel a natural gas plant in an attempt to buy liberal votes. See what happens to the parking lot south of Wellesley subway station. Is any politician advocating for green space there or is it destined to be another “lost opportunity”?
Click to expand...
You mean the gas plant in Mississauga that all parties famously pledged to cancel in an attempt to buy ndp and conservative votes? Yup, you do.

42
 
ProjectEnd said:
How many parks could you buy with $5.2bn in hidden COVID relief funds, @interchange42?
Click to expand...

Can I play too? LOL

Using Graywood's site at Yonge/Dundas as a marker.......73M for roughly 0.3 acres..

235M per acre of land for a downtown core site, if it would otherwise be considered developable.

So 5.2B buys you about 22 acres in downtown Toronto. Though....at that price point you can't afford to build the park.....LOL
 
I really wish we could have found space to build a sports field somewhere near the village. Not sure if this plus the southern part of the parking lot would have been enough, but I wish they could find some way to assemble lands somewhere near the village so every single gay sports team doesn't have to go halfway across the city to play games. This city loves to pretend it cares about queer people, (especially in June!), but in terms of things that actually matter, like letting us play sports locally, they don't care at all. But they put a flag up at city hall yesterday so I guess that should be enough for me.
 
TossYourJacket said:
I really wish we could have found space to build a sports field somewhere near the village. Not sure if this plus the southern part of the parking lot would have been enough, but I wish they could find some way to assemble lands somewhere near the village so every single gay sports team doesn't have to go halfway across the city to play games. This city loves to pretend it cares about queer people, (especially in June!), but in terms of things that actually matter, like letting us play sports locally, they don't care at all. But they put a flag up at city hall yesterday so I guess that should be enough for me.
Click to expand...

A more or less regulation soccer pitch would not fit on that site (the parking lot alone).

I've drawn the approx. dimensions.

1654225555393.png


That gives you zero extra space (no pathway, no landscaping, no buffer, built right to the sidewalk)

If you used the Cherry Beach sports fields as reference, you'd be adding another 10m and 5M respectively.

***

I had a quick glance at all of East Downtown, and the parcels that have been or could be examined for Parks, I can only see 2 that would accommodate a full sports field.

- The Armoury at Moss Park
- The proposed Catholic School site at Parliament/Shuter.

No other site bounded by Bloor/Parliament/Railway Corridor/Yonge works out.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top