[allengeorge]

My question is what does the city have to do with this? Is it insufficient planning policy, or a laissez-faire approach during the approvals process? What exactly are you talking about?

My understanding is that city departments such as Transportation, PFR, etc. have specific guidelines that they know how to follow and that are the path of least resistance. Anything beyond that is a struggle to achieve. For example: city streets have to be a certain width. Public pedestrian-only streets (as opposed to POPS) and one-way streets are much harder to build/approve. If you're a developer, unless you're willing to fight with the city you're going to opt for what city guidelines are tailored to. Another example: TDSB does not have a 'template' for building schools into tower bases, or schools without parking. So, unless you're willing to fight with them and try get them to change their guidelines, you're not going to have a "school in a building" typology.

Also, on another note: despite two quotes with increasing context, you have misunderstood my statement. In this case I am not "disappointed because developers don't give us what they promised". I'm disappointed because my understanding is that city departments aren't always flexible about one-off changes for a neighbourhood.

 

[AlexBozikovic]

". I'm disappointed because my understanding is that city departments aren't always flexible about one-off changes for a neighbourhood.

Exactly. Developments that are weird (ie don’t follow the city’s preferred approaches to built form) get a hard time. So, if you’re a developer without a strong vision, you give city staff something standard to approve. What’s in the Downsview drawings is not standard. It’s better.

The East Harbour comparison is complex. But compare the Henning Larsen masterplan to the current version. The new version complies with city policies. Is it good?

 

[Northern Light]

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







View attachment 354754View attachment 354755View attachment 354756View attachment 354759

Muddling through this, I think 2 key roads remain problematically aligned.

Dufferin (extension) stands out, as they've drawn it to link with Chesswood............instead of Dufferin.
Likewise, there is no plan to push Carl Hall Road all the way through the site (ideally as Sheppard Avenue; with the existing 'hump' renamed 'whatever Crescent')
I think both of these are important it seamlessly and logically integrating the community into its broader surroundings.

It appears to me, that the problem is that DND intends to retain a good size chunk of property in the north-east section of the site which would obstruct any through-running road connecting Sheppard to Sheppard.

It doesn't form an absolute block to connecting Dufferin to Dufferin; but due to the constraint of the TTC's Wilson Yard, it's certainly an awkward connection to make without the DND block.

I get why the military may wish to retain space in Toronto, but I don't understand why they can''t do so with a more urban footprint; rather than sprawling over larger chucks of land; and/or retaining key City-building sites.

(Ahem, Moss Park)

An image to illustrate:

 

[innsertnamehere]

That’s great and all, but both those roads run through land they don’t own.

 

[Northern Light]

That’s great and all, but both those roads run through land they don’t own.

You do realize I actually said that in my post, right?

 

[lenaitch]

Muddling through this, I think 2 key roads remain problematically aligned.

Dufferin (extension) stands out, as they've drawn it to link with Chesswood............instead of Dufferin.
Likewise, there is no plan to push Carl Hall Road all the way through the site (ideally as Sheppard Avenue; with the existing 'hump' renamed 'whatever Crescent')
I think both of these are important it seamlessly and logically integrating the community into its broader surroundings.

It appears to me, that the problem is that DND intends to retain a good size chunk of property in the north-east section of the site which would obstruct any through-running road connecting Sheppard to Sheppard.

It doesn't form an absolute block to connecting Dufferin to Dufferin; but due to the constraint of the TTC's Wilson Yard, it's certainly an awkward connection to make without the DND block.

I get why the military may wish to retain space in Toronto, but I don't understand why they can''t do so with a more urban footprint; rather than sprawling over larger chucks of land; and/or retaining key City-building sites.

(Ahem, Moss Park)

An image to illustrate:

View attachment 355911

"I get why the military may wish to retain space in Toronto, but I don't understand why they can''t do so with a more urban footprint; rather than sprawling over larger chucks of land; and/or retaining key City-building sites."

Perhaps DND may consider relocating if somebody else paid for it - like the developers who stands to make serious coin out of this. Even if they do, do they get chased out of the next site when it, too, becomes a "key City-building site"? I doubt the same view would prevail if somebody proposed kicking out Sunnybrook because of the land's City-building potential.

If you look at the site, there are fair number of 'green vehicles" stationed there, necessary for their own purposes and training but also necessary for the next 'aid of the civil power' tasking, like Toronto's hospitals and LTC facilities - or snow plowing.

 

[Northern Light]

"I get why the military may wish to retain space in Toronto, but I don't understand why they can''t do so with a more urban footprint; rather than sprawling over larger chucks of land; and/or retaining key City-building sites."

Perhaps DND may consider relocating if somebody else paid for it - like the developers who stands to make serious coin out of this. Even if they do, do they get chased out of the next site when it, too, becomes a "key City-building site"? I doubt the same view would prevail if somebody proposed kicking out Sunnybrook because of the land's City-building potential.

If you look at the site, there are fair number of 'green vehicles" stationed there, necessary for their own purposes and training but also necessary for the next 'aid of the civil power' tasking, like Toronto's hospitals and LTC facilities - or snow plowing.

Sunnybrook is a behemoth, but, it's not really in the way of any major N-S or E-W road being connected across the City.

That's what's key in my mind.

I'm not anti-DND.

I assume there would be money to be made in selling a portion of their site here (they needn't sell it all); though if they want that size of land area; it does become a challenge anywhere in Toronto.

 

[lenaitch]

Sunnybrook is a behemoth, but, it's not really in the way of any major N-S or E-W road being connected across the City.

That's what's key in my mind.

I'm not anti-DND.

I assume there would be money to be made in selling a portion of their site here (they needn't sell it all); though if they want that size of land area; it does become a challenge anywhere in Toronto.

It looks like they could release some land just south of the DRDC building to enable straightening Sheppard. It looks like to be just used for storage.

 

[ferusian]

OPA application submitted Oct. 14:

Development Applications

Project description:

The Official Plan Amendment application filed by Urban Strategies Inc on behalf of Canada Lands Company and Northcrest Developments proposes to update the 2011 Downsview Area Secondary Plan for the subject lands with a Framework Plan. This application will be used to inform the City-initiated review of the Downsview Secondary Plan which is ongoing. The proposed Framework Plan is guided by six principles: 1) establishing complete, connected communities; 2) achieving inherent sustainability and resilience; 3) cultivating "City Nature"; 4) connecting people and places; 5)embedding equity and accessibility; and 6) honouring the uniqeness of the place and its people. Collectively, these guiding principles would set the stage for a series of mixed-use, complete, and connected communities. The subject lands are expected to host 83,500 residents and 41,500 jobs by 2051. This growth would occur in multiple phases. The proposed Framework Plan identifies 10 districts where more detailed planning (District Plans, Zoning By-laws, Plans of Subdivision, etc) would occur in the future.

 

[Red_Bulmer]

I can't believe they don't want to connect Dufferin to Dufferin and Sheppard to Sheppard. Seems like a great opportunity to take out the useless Allen Rd. highway. Dufferin could have the light rail trains it deserves going all the way to Finch.

 

[Towered]

I can't believe they don't want to connect Dufferin to Dufferin and Sheppard to Sheppard. Seems like a great opportunity to take out the useless Allen Rd. highway. Dufferin could have the light rail trains it deserves going all the way to Finch.

I can't believe the city isn't making it a requirement for development.

 

[AlbertC]

Commentary from councillor James Pasternak:

New Downsview development plan could be the biggest in North America

A framework plan for Downsview was recently released, which shows how developers hope to build the project over the next 30 years

trnto.com

The idea is to develop on the Bombardier airstrip, which will be vacated in about 18 months, in addition to federally held land in the adjacent area, totalling about 528 acres.

Local councillor James Pasternak said that it is likely the largest development project in North America, if not the western world.

“It’s very difficult to get your head around how large it is,” he said. “It is truly daunting.”

The project would consist of up to 12 million square feet of commercial land, 100 acres of new parkland that would be added to Downsview Park and a large residential component of which the details have yet to be hammered out.

The lands already have one of its first commercial deals — a $200 million movie studio investment, according to Pasternak.

“What we’re looking for is a development of the future, a transformative development where they’re building livable communities,” he said. “The risk is, if it’s not done properly, it’s just going to be a condo junkyard.”

Pastnernak noted that the densification of the area has to be held under control by the city of Toronto. The first step in making all of this possible has already been achieved, Pasternak said. The city has reached a settlement to rezone the area to mixed use in exchange for the 12 million square feet of employment lands and under the condition that a new community centre will be built.

Now, the next step is to change the area’s 20-year-old secondary plan to allow development on the land, which currently isn’t possible, according to Pasternak.

If it can be done properly, the new community would be well served by transit. It is at the nexus of three Toronto Transit Commission stations — Wilson, Sheppard West and Downsview Park — and is near main arterial roads such as Sheppard, Keele and Allen Road, not to mention Highway 401.

And a local area rep:

Local resident Patrick O’Neill is a part of the Downsview Lands Community Voice Association, and he said he has been on the file for about eight years. Over that time, his group has grown cynical over the plans, given its size and aspirations, where the residents’ voices can feel lost in all of the chatter.

“There’s no way you can make much sense of it,” O’Neill said. “There’s so many sides to it. It’s so huge.… It’s too much. It would take a lifetime to understand it.”

The residents’ group is mostly concerned about Downsview Park and hopes to build more access to it and gain the 100 acres, which was originally promised for the park when it was built, but it never materialized.

As for the plans east of the park, O’Neill said it is too early to give any input.

“It’s a waste of time to say what you would like because it has to undergo so many approvals from so many different sources,” he said. “There’s so many cooks in the kitchen.”

 

[Towered]

Commentary from councillor James Pasternak:

New Downsview development plan could be the biggest in North America

A framework plan for Downsview was recently released, which shows how developers hope to build the project over the next 30 years

trnto.com

And a local area rep:

They should look to Seestadt in Vienna for inspiration.

 

[Midtown Urbanist]

They should look to Seestadt in Vienna for inspiration.

Indeed. This is an excellent reference point, as it was similarly a former airport site.

The video below provides an overview of Seestadt.

 

[AlbertC]

Downsview could see the largest development in North America

80,000 people could call area home in coming years

streetsoftoronto.com

City councillor James Pasternak said that it is likely the largest development project in North America, if not the western world.

“It’s very difficult to get your head around how large it is,” he said. “It is truly daunting.”

The project would consist of up to 12 million square feet of commercial land, 100 acres of new parkland that would be added to Downsview Park and a large residential component of which the details have yet to be hammered out.

The land already has one of its first commercial deals — a $200 million movie studio investment, according to Pasternak.

“This is one of the most transformational development applications in the country,” said city councillor James Pasternak. “It’ll be one of the most scrutinized.”

That scrutiny has already begun as the city held a community consultation on Jan. 25 attended by approximately 100 local residents who fired off questions directed at City of Toronto Planning staff.

Questions of concern? Parkland, a community centre and how the project will affect residents nearby.

But first, the city has to update the Downsview Area Secondary Plan to accommodate the hefty ideas.

Last updated in 2011, it was drawn with the assumption that current tenant Bombardier would continue to operate on the land and has strict height restrictions and does not allow for mixed use.

That assumption, however, did not come to fruition, and in 18 months’ time, the land will be ready for its next life.

If the plan is changed, Pasternak envisions a “15-minute city” being built on the land. An idea popular in France, it means that anything a resident needs is only 15 minutes away. Pasternak wants the project to consist of mostly mid-rises of about 12 storeys in height, with taller towers close to transit stations, and for there to be at least 100 acres of parkland.

But to get there will take time and a lot of community consultation. Pasternak expects the project to be built out in phases over the next 30 years.

“This is a long road ahead,” he said.

The park is also home to the Toronto Wildlife Centre, the Downsview Park Film and Television Studios and the Downsview Park Arts Alliance.

Patrick O’Neill, a member of the Downsview Lands Community Voice Association (DLCVA), which represents residents in the surrounding areas, attended the city’s virtual meeting. He said the development is “terrific” in the sense that it is near three subway stops and could add much needed supply to the city’s housing market.

Although residents for now have only submitted one objection to the plan — that the size of parkland is exaggerated as some of it is not publicly accessible — O’Neill expects dozens of more inputs over the years.

He is comforted, though, by the seeming willingness of the builders and the city to listen to the community.

“To be fair, they are begging for input,” he said. “Are we being heard? Yes, we are.”