[TheTigerMaster]

I don't like this at all and think it would be a real lose to the city.

I rather like the design but I don't like where they are putting it. University certainly needs a refresh but it still remains Canada's only true grande blvd. University really is unique in Canada and to just toss it aside would be a real shame and very short sighted. Torontonians lament the fact that it doesn't have the archetectural grandeur or heritage of Montreal but University is one thing Montreal doesn't come close to. The design is there but not the location. Such a concept would be far better on Yonge or especially Queen which is about to get torn up due to the subway construction regardless. With the Ontario Line coming, getting rid of the streetcar will not be problematic and such a design on Queen between Church and Spadina would beautiful the street, still make NPS accessible by a parkway, make it far more pedestrian friendly, and be far better utilised by the population. Even Spadina between Queen and Bloor would be a better choice.

Despite liking the design I would actually consider this closer to an abomination than a asset. Toronto has a lot of streets that could use a far superior public realm and beautification so tearing down it's most grande avenue is the last place they should be looking at.

How does this toss University Avenue aside? The proposal is far more grand and unique than what exists today

 

[allengeorge]

I don't like this at all and think it would be a real lose to the city.

I rather like the design but I don't like where they are putting it. University certainly needs a refresh but it still remains Canada's only true grande blvd. University really is unique in Canada and to just toss it aside would be a real shame and very short sighted. Torontonians lament the fact that it doesn't have the archetectural grandeur or heritage of Montreal but University is one thing Montreal doesn't come close to. The design is there but not the location. Such a concept would be far better on Yonge or especially Queen which is about to get torn up due to the subway construction regardless. With the Ontario Line coming, getting rid of the streetcar will not be problematic and such a design on Queen between Church and Spadina would beautiful the street, still make NPS accessible by a parkway, make it far more pedestrian friendly, and be far better utilised by the population. Even Spadina between Queen and Bloor would be a better choice.

Despite liking the design I would actually consider this closer to an abomination than a asset. Toronto has a lot of streets that could use a far superior public realm and beautification so tearing down it's most grande avenue is the last place they should be looking at.

I couldn’t disagree more. If University Ave meant to be a “grand boulevard” that makes the city feel special, it’s a failure. As is, it’s little more than a traffic conduit (and underused at that). It’s not particularly inviting to pedestrians, and is unremarkable in terms of public presence.

The Evergreen proposal is worlds better on actually improving the city (pedestrians are actually thought of, the street isn’t seen as only a conduit). It reminds me of some of the linear parks I saw in Stockholm that were incredible popular with locals, and brought life to the spaces around them.

 

[W. K. Lis]

"University Avenue was originally made up of two streets, College Avenue and University Street, and separated by a fence, but it was eventually removed and the streets were merged. The merged street ended at Queen Street until 1931, when it was extended southward to Front Street."

From link.

 

[AlexBozikovic]

1858:

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Are they offering any money or is it just an idea from them? I really don't see this happening for at least 20 years unless some private money is put forth.

It would be nice if the proposal is underwritten by a philanthropist - like the Bentway.

Anyways, the general aim and overarching design is great - I am not so convinced by the design choices of some of the spaces themselves. But that's still kind of early to nitpick too much on.

AoD

 

[W. K. Lis]

1858:

View attachment 283018

For reference, ANDERSON STREET and AGNES STREET are today, DUNDAS STREET WEST.

 

[ssiguy2]

University will NEVER become a pedestrian centred street and that's fine. Not every street has to have cafes and shopping as not all streets are designed for the same purpose. University is a governmental and institutional avenue and should be maintained as such. It is also a great ceremonial route and offers a different urban experience.

Also, if the aim is to give the city more room for pedestrians then University should be the LAST street the city looks at. No other street in the city has as wide sidewalks as University as opposed to very pedestrian heavy Yonge & Queen where the sidewalks are embarrassingly thin. This is going to turn this potentially grande blvd into nothing more than glorified bike route and walking path. If you want to pedestrianise the city then start with where the pedestrians are actually located. This looks to me like a project looking for a problem and not the other way around.

Yonge will be studied to death and little will change. The best option, and most realistic and beneficial, would be Queen. The entire street from Jervis to Spadina is about to get torn up regardless due to the Ontario Line. This is an opportune time to remake that already pedestrian heavy street into a true urban oasis. What's more, it can easily be built into the OL budget itself.

 

[allengeorge]

University will NEVER become a pedestrian centred street and that fine

This is an interesting response, but I guess it is strictly true in the most Toronto of ways: we are unlikely to do anything or make any changes, so yeah - it won’t become a pedestrian street.

That aside, there’s no basis for this claim at all: why _won’t_ it become a pedestrian street? It clearly was one in the past, and was bulldozed into the thruway it is today, so...

It is also a great ceremonial route and offers a different urban experience.

My argument is that it’s failing as a “great ceremonial route”. It’s not particularly interesting or well-maintained. And this, despite the fact that Queens Park is it’s northern terminus. From a city-building perspective it is a failure, and acts as nothing more than a thruway. No one says “Come to Toronto and see University Ave!”

Also, if the aim is to give the city more room for pedestrians then University should be the LAST street the city looks at.

This is also an odd argument. To paraphrase: “because we can’t do it in other places (some which are more deserving) we shouldn’t do it here.”

Also, the project here isn’t about just “giving more space for pedestrians”, it’s “creating a linear park and green space in an area that’s unloved, and underperforming and could be way more than it currently is.” So the comparison to Queen is an “apples vs. oranges” one.

I agree with you that Queen should have wider sidewalks, but...that’s a different project, and it’s not an either-or. You are free to fight for wider sidewalks on Queen. And I will support you on that fight, regardless of what happens on University Ave.

 

[W. K. Lis]

One of the many plans for University Avenue that never came about. Vimy Circle. From link.

Vimy Circle

By the late 1920s, with the increase in car ownership, downtown traffic congestion had increased significantly. The need for more thoroughfares through the city core became pressing. One improvement was to extend University Avenue – which then terminated at Queen Street – southwards.


In May 1928 the new Advisory City Planning Commission was appointed to recommend the best route for the extension. The Commission reported back the following spring recommending University Avenue be continued south to Richmond Street, then extended in a south-easterly direction, terminating at Front Street opposite the newly opened Union Station.

To mask the shift in alignment at Richmond Street, the Commission suggested the construction of a monumental traffic circle, Vimy Circle. In the centre, traffic would circulate around a vast memorial to Canada’s war dead. The commission also envisaged an axial road, running south-easterly from the circle to merge with Wellington at Spadina. However, the recent stock market crash of October 1929 had altered the appetite for such expensive works. The scheme was ultimately shelved with just the University Avenue extension being completed, and Vimy Circle being dismissed as a frill.

University Avenue from Vimy Circle, looking north
Report of the Advisory City Planning Commission, p.36
1929
City of Toronto Archives
Series 60, Item 585

University Avenue from Vimy Circle, looking south
Report of the Advisory City Planning Commission, p.30
1929
City of Toronto Archives
Series 60, Item 585

 

[ShonTron]

They need to be careful with the vehicle lanes as there is on street parking needs in front of the hospitals. I can't picture University operating well with only 1 through lane in each direction if the curb lane is always full of accessible parking.

They either need to relocate parking or create dedicated spaces for it.

I agree that University, especially north of Queen, would operate fine with 2 vehicle lanes in each direction. It's all that's needed.

The hospitals don't need on street parking on University Avenue. There's no on-street parking in front of St. Michael's Hospital on Queen Street. Each of the hospitals on University have parking garages on or adjacent to their properties.

I used to work in the area, and I noticed that most of the cars parked on University Avenue were those taking advantage of the city's policy of providing free parking to anyone with an accessible permit. Lots of those were the same cars, parked every day, and were often luxury vehicles.

 

[daniel_kryz]

This is obviously an amazing project, but how would this street be vibrant (even after its reconstruction)? The land uses are mostly institutional (healthcare and research) and the buildings are bulky and unwelcoming to pedestrians. The street will look beautiful; but the lack of ground-floor amenities, bulkiness, and boring land-uses will hinder its ability to actually become a great street.

 

[ADRM]

This is obviously an amazing project, but how would this street be vibrant (even after its reconstruction)? The land uses are mostly institutional (healthcare and research) and the buildings are bulky and unwelcoming to pedestrians. The street will look beautiful; but the lack of ground-floor amenities, bulkiness, and boring land-uses will hinder its ability to actually become a great street.

I genuinely don't mean to be curt, but have you ever actually walked around University in the middle of a weekday? The sidewalks are teeming with people from the truly rich variety of uses that are there today. The problem is that it currently is something of a vehicular highway hellscape and that the central boulevard is a poorly designed piece of landscape design that has fallen into disrepair.

This remarkable proposal would solve all of those problems, and would bring it from the 1950s-esque shithole it is today into the 21st-century, and in so doing both drastically better serve the tens of thousands of people who already spill out on the sidewalks (and brave the crosswalks) every day today and also generate a natural draw to a place that currently has none.

 

[UpperAvenue]

I actually want to see the park on the west side of the median. There would be fewer cross streets to interrupt the park continuity and would connect better to UofT since you would only need to cross one street, not two. It also lengthens the relatively short block between University and Simcoe, which might mitigate traffic backup at those intersections.

I do like the idea of expanding the park around Osgoode, but if it was on the west side it would benefit Campbell House, which currently has a rather small park around it. They could also use pavers on the street to visually connect the two parks in the block between Queen and Armory.

Having it on the west side would also allow for protests outside the US Embassy without blocking the street… cause that’s a thing! Plus there are more residential buildings on the west side, so it would be more accessible to those residents. The biggest drawback would probably be increased shadowing which would be unfortunate.

 

[ssiguy2]

This is obviously an amazing project, but how would this street be vibrant (even after its reconstruction)? The land uses are mostly institutional (healthcare and research) and the buildings are bulky and unwelcoming to pedestrians. The street will look beautiful; but the lack of ground-floor amenities, bulkiness, and boring land-uses will hinder its ability to actually become a great street.

Exactly! Not all streets are designed for the same purpose. King & Bay will never be Yonge which will never be Yorkville which will never be Kensington Market which will never be Queen and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. In fact, that is exactly how it should be as they represent clusters that serve their unique attributes. University is a institutional street. Yes there are tons of people during the day but at night it's a dead zone just like Bay & King. None of the existing buildings can be somehow transformed over some kind of pedestrian bohemian heaven because the buildings and the street they are on, was never designed for it.

If University was a street with small buildings then perhaps the transformation could place but such is not the case. These are LARGE footprint, institutional, and often historic buildings that aren't going anywhere.

 

[sche]

Exactly! Not all streets are designed for the same purpose. King & Bay will never be Yonge which will never be Yorkville which will never be Kensington Market which will never be Queen and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. In fact, that is exactly how it should be as they represent clusters that serve their unique attributes. University is a institutional street. Yes there are tons of people during the day but at night it's a dead zone just like Bay & King. None of the existing buildings can be somehow transformed over some kind of pedestrian bohemian heaven because the buildings and the street they are on, was never designed for it.

If University was a street with small buildings then perhaps the transformation could place but such is not the case. These are LARGE footprint, institutional, and often historic buildings that aren't going anywhere.

I really don't think the aim has to be to create some kind of pedestrian shopping/dining street or anything like that. I think you're really missing the whole "park" part of the proposal - it's like rail deck park but way cheaper, in that it creates huge amounts of new green space where it is sorely needed in the core. There is no reason why institutional land uses can prevent University Ave from becoming a great green space.