Discussion in 'Buildings' started by CanadianNational, Sep 26, 2012.
New Sports Field Rendering
Although there was talk of keeping and refurbishing at least one of the Peter Dickinson towers in this section, I don't see it planned on the map. Does anyone have any info on whether it is planned to be retained or not?
They've been deemed impossible to bring up to code, IIRC, which they would have to be if modified to suit what is expected today. Leaving one as-is is not an option either apparently; people do not want to live in them in the state they are now in.
That's what I have been told: I was not given a more detailed response. I hope we'll get in to take a look at one before the wreckers move in.
I'm dreading traffic on Dundas when phase 2 is filling up and phase 3 construction traffic is underway - I feel like that stretch from Broadview to Parliament gets slower by the month. Is there any likelihood of improvements to traffic management in the area, maybe replacing the crosswalk near Paintbox with a light for more predictable pedestrian crossings etc?
I really feel that between West Don Lands and Regent Park (not to mention intensification across the river near Broadview and at Carlaw/Dundas) cross-Don links are going to get very heavily trafficked but I don't see how to manage it more efficiently not least given we're still a ways away from low floor streetcars/all door boarding on the Dundas and College cars and the topography and street grid doesn't offer many ideas on how to add capacity.
Does anyone know when phase III demolition begins?
Regent Park: Phase 3-5 (TCHC + ?, Multiple Towers, ?)
From City of Toronto Planning:
An application to amend the Official Plan and the Zoning By-law has been made by Toronto Community Housing Corporation. Proposed changes to the plan include:
Increase from 5,400 to 7,500 social and market housing units at the completion of all phases
Increase the projected population from 12,500 to approximately 17,000 at the completion of all phases
Removal of two small parkettes but the creation of new larger park/sports field and adjustment to permitted land use designations, blocks and streets proposed to reflect reconfigurations of park spaces
Addition of commercial parking garage as a permitted use
Demolition of heritage listed 14 Blevins building and proposal for a 60m tower on this block
Increase of building heights in some locations including but not limited to:
Two additional 88m towers on Dundas St E (Phase 3)
One new 120m tower on Parliament Street (Phase 4)
Sites on north side of central park and site on River Street â€“ currently permitted at 22m & 30m, proposed increase to 50m
I thought that this was a great pic showing the building's proposed massing (taken from the south-west) in the revised OP & Zoning applications:
Image from the Regent Park Planning Report by Gladki Planning Associates
I think I saw a poster in my building about the proposed amendments to the Official Plan - the meeting is tonight I believe
An update/presentation from TCHC:
Upcoming Community Consultation Meeting June 10th:
Just returned from the meeting. The ghist is the last TCHC gang's plan is not financially viable, so the need to increase the number of units. The giant 120 meter tower at Parliament and Gerrard was very contensious.
Considering that it will be nothing like anything on Parliament except St. Jamestown to the North and the Distillery to the south, I can imagine why. It's truly out of scale for that streetscape. I think if it were situated close to the existing taller buildings at the center of the development it would make sense, and not raise a fuss, as everything would step up to it. Putting it right up against Parliament, though, seems jarring. Does this area need another abrupt contrast in built form? I don't think so. Parliament and Gerrard need all the comfortably scaled lovin' they can get.
Maybe it's just me, but the base of it looks possibly 'big box'-y too. That could be problematic if planned.
In my opinion this particular building is intended as a distraction from the other changes. The developers know this building height will not get approved, and know it will receive the greatest public protest and attention. Thus the developers have intentionally asked for too much, thus they will appear to be listening to the city and public when they agree to reduce this one building's height to a more appropriate 10 or so stories - IMO this was their prefered height all along.
Meanwhile, the public is distracted from tne other changes. By offering to change an extraordinary deviation from plan, the proverbable low hanging fruit, the public misses the bigger picture.
Why don't they just average out the heights of all the buildings--say 15s instead of one large one and the rest shorter?
Here's the link about why they can't be reused. Mostly "I don't want to live in this when I can live in a new condo."