[Northern Light]

Overall, I think it looks good. I'm concerned that it will still very car-dependent, despite being on the subway line, like all the developments along the Sheppard subway line.

I would also like to see a "landmark" square or park that is more than just your typical gazebo-and-swing sets-community park. Something that attracts people from all corners of the city.

The key will be whether a new Dufferin street running through has the Dufferin bus on it; whether there's east-west service across what is now Carl Hall Road (in part) (but I would prefer to be a more logically re-aligned Sheppard, with the existing Sheppard getting a new name); along with the inclusion of key services such as schools and supermarkets deep into the residential community as well as next to transit.

There's absolutely an opportunity to make this a transit-oriented community; but we need to have further detail and refinement in the right direction to get there.

 

[interchange42]

Overall, I think it looks good. I'm concerned that it will still very car-dependent, despite being on the subway line, like all the developments along the Sheppard subway line.

I would also like to see a "landmark" square or park that is more than just your typical gazebo-and-swing sets-community park. Something that attracts people from all corners of the city.

There is a huge park recently built just across the rail corridor to the west, already waiting for you…

42

 

[AlexBozikovic]

I think getting the density up a bit is integral to the success of the new neighbourhood, and also important given that this is an unparalleled opportunity to make better use of existing transportation infrastucture (three subway stations, one GO).

I agree, and I think this is likely to happen over time.

 

[abovegrade]

Some screenshots and cool renderings from the application.

Here is the link in case you guys haven't read: https://44e0cc70-0fba-43fa-98a1-d99...d/4ea6e4_83b2b0b8db67436782994a36ab9e5c3a.pdf

 

[Undead]

The density is way too low for such a transit rich area. Should be at least double. As long as the public realm is done properly, the tower heights above aren't that relevant.

 

[soufflot]

To put the density in perspective, the plan above is aiming for 83,500 people over 211.5 hectares, or roughly 40,000 people/km^2.

That's about as dense as Sham Shui Po in HK, the 11th arrondissement in Paris, or Manhattan's Upper East Side.

It's not that this proposal isn't dense, it's just a different type of density than what Toronto is used to. Closer to the much lauded Paris-style density of extensive midrises. IMO a very refreshing change from the same density as achieved by our usual formula of point towers backing onto townhomes.

 

[allengeorge]

To put the density in perspective, the plan above is aiming for 83,500 people over 211.5 hectares, or roughly 40,000 people/km^2.

I have no problems with the built form (i.e. I'm not looking for point towers). I do think that we could have higher density by increasing average building height by a couple of floors. That said, this plan is refreshing because it breaks Toronto's norm. If, miraculously, it's built as portrayed - I'd consider it a massive win.

 

[DopeyFish]

Nobody is saying it isn't dense, only that it's not dense enough for our needs as a city.

We always build small piddly stuff when we struggle to increase density in neighborhoods with single family homes due to NIMBYs. Only on big plots do we have a chance to build at a large scale (like old industry, big commercial plots) like Humber bay shores. Even though that one is a bit of a mess, that's largely because lack of a singular master plan.

This area has the transit and major highways with nearly zero people in impacted areas so they should be reaching for the sky.

This type of plot is a city building plot but instead of city building, we are suburb building.

Like yeah in context it'll be a lot, but it's just frustrating that we are building for ~80-100k instead of 300-500k

 

[DirectionNorth]

Nobody is saying it isn't dense, only that it's not dense enough for our needs as a city.

We always build small piddly stuff when we struggle to increase density in neighborhoods with single family homes due to NIMBYs. Only on big plots do we have a chance to build at a large scale (like old industry, big commercial plots) like Humber bay shores. Even though that one is a bit of a mess, that's largely because lack of a singular master plan.

Manhattan has a population density of 27350 people per sq km, which would be 65000 on the Downsview lands. The 85000 proposal would, if in Europe, be the third densest neighborhood in that continent. At 300,000, we'd be building at a population density above basically anything else on the planet, excluding slums (which is not what we want to build).
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...-from-the-densest-neighborhoods-across-europe

This area has the transit and major highways with nearly zero people in impacted areas so they should be reaching for the sky.

This type of plot is a city building plot but instead of city building, we are suburb building.

Super-High-Density is also a very terrible way to build. You'd be overcrowding schools, parks, and local services.

As soufflot mentioned, it's not towers, it's medium density. Nobody has ever called Paris a suburb, and we would be building this at the density of the densest areas of Paris.

Like yeah in context it'll be a lot, but it's just frustrating that we are building for ~80-100k instead of 300-500k

"In context it's a lot, but I don't care about comparisons to slums and widely lauded urban areas, I care about numbers." Sorry.

Edit: I've been accused of promoting high-density without thought in the past, in multiple contexts. Taking a detailed look at the plan, there are tons of midrises, instead of just townhomes, which is the best part of the plan - I hope that this will be a precedent for the mid-rising of Toronto.

 

[sche]

Nobody is saying it isn't dense, only that it's not dense enough for our needs as a city.

We always build small piddly stuff when we struggle to increase density in neighborhoods with single family homes due to NIMBYs. Only on big plots do we have a chance to build at a large scale (like old industry, big commercial plots) like Humber bay shores. Even though that one is a bit of a mess, that's largely because lack of a singular master plan.

This area has the transit and major highways with nearly zero people in impacted areas so they should be reaching for the sky.

This type of plot is a city building plot but instead of city building, we are suburb building.

Like yeah in context it'll be a lot, but it's just frustrating that we are building for ~80-100k instead of 300-500k

We *don't* need or want to cram the population of London ON or Hamilton into Downsview airport, that is a ridiculous proposition.

 

[Al Ski]

I beg to differ. Templehofer Feld in Berlin is a hugely successful and interesting public space: https://futurelandscapes.ca/tempelhofer-feld

Mind you, it's surrounded by dense neighbourhoods.

Not to mention 9 U-Bahn stations (3 lines) and 2 S-Bahn stations (5 lines).

Everyone here would be screaming for 40 soopertawls if the same conditions applied.

I doubt there's a building over 6 storeys within a km in any direction of Templehof.

 

[christiesplits]

The one advantage to going with super-density at Downsview is that there is next to no NIMBYs in the area. In a housing crisis, why not take advantage of areas that are ripe for this kind of development, and unlikely to start a neighborhood war?

 

[Undead]

40k is good, but not enough for an area with this much transit, in my view. 100k/sq.km. would be appropriate, with the obvious proviso that enough services/amenities are provided and extremely low parking ratios ensured.

 

[DirectionNorth]

40k is good, but not enough for an area with this much transit, in my view. 100k/sq.km. would be appropriate, with the obvious proviso that enough services/amenities are provided and extremely low parking ratios ensured.

The question being: how will you ensure that amenities will be provided, and that we'll build places people want to live? The only way to get to 100k/km2 is shoebox condos, which is not somewhere people want to live.

Can anyone show me a neighborhood anywhere in the developed world with that sort of population density? Even the built up areas of Hong Kong are only 40,000/km2.

Edit: My research found that for residential areas of HK, the density was 100,000/km2. But this area will have jobs as well, and they do that by stuffing the poorest 5-10% into literal cages, and by having a median unit size of 430 square feet. Not a model we want to emulate.

 

[Northern Light]

40k is good, but not enough for an area with this much transit, in my view. 100k/sq.km. would be appropriate, with the obvious proviso that enough services/amenities are provided and extremely low parking ratios ensured.

The question being: how will you ensure that amenities will be provided, and that we'll build places people want to live? The only way to get to 100k/km2 is shoebox condos, which is not somewhere people want to live.

Can anyone show me a neighborhood anywhere in the developed world with that sort of population density? Even the built up areas of Hong Kong are only 40,000/km2.

Highest density area in North America is St. Jamestown at 82,000 per km2 according to the 2016 census

The 'Friendship Village' area of Washington DC (actually Maryland) is 2nd at ~81,000perkm2.

Toronto East-Downtown (centred on Bloor-Church) is the 2nd densest in Toronto at 54,000 per km2

On the basis of the above, I find 100,000 to be an unrealistic, and probably undesirable goal at this location.