A few follow-ups.
Regarding using the Don and other ravines as park spaces, this was recently suggested by Marc Ryan at PublicWork in the Star:
http://www.thestar.com/bigideas/exp...to_a_worldclass_park_marc_ryans_big_idea.html
Personally, I think green spaces that reflect some semblance of wilderness or natural beauty are important in an urban setting, and not every green space needs to be an overly designed or manicured green space. That being said, I think there could be ways to draw more people into the ravines, but I would stop short of saying we should redevelop them to the point of being overrun with people. Interesting idea. Would be curious to see some thoughts on execution.
Regarding my "dead zone" comment in connection withe the GBC building, I should clarify that I don't think the area is a dead zone, but just that the GBC building itself is a dead zone in that there is nothing in terms of at-grade uses that animate the area. Maybe in fall and winter it is busier with students, but given that summer enrollment is usually a fraction of the main academic year, placing the GBC building where it is doesn't add much in terms of summertime animation. I agree the area is bustling, but that is in spite of the GBC building, not because of it. At least, there should be some publicly-accessible use at grade, like the restaurant in the Corus building.
Regarding my concerns with Sherbourne Commons North, I think the comment that my criticism is "premature in advance of residential development" illustrates my point exactly. Great public spaces draw people in. Sugar Beach is a great space as it draws people in despite the fact that there has been no residential development in the area. Cherry Beach draws people in despite the fact that the Portlands haven't been developed. I will concede that the north end of the Commons will become more animated as the area expands and evolves, but I think this will be because of necessity not because it is a great space people want to go to. The southern part of Sherbourne Commons is usually bustling with activity when the northern part is empty. It looked cool in an architect's rendering, but fundamentally misses the mark.
Regarding the Portlands Consultations, thanks for the link - I had wanted to attend the meetings, but only found out about them afterwards. I've submitted my feedback and suggestions - my preference being Land Use Option 2, as putting port uses south of the shipping channel will preserve the ability to redevelop the space as public use and park areas in the future, while dropping in mixed use developments will mean that future redevelopment will be impossible - plus the fact that the physical separation of the lands south of the channel will likely cause the isolation of whatever mixed use development is put there, which could lead to the 'slumification' of that area over time.