Automation Gallery
Superstar
i believe it serves more than the locals, i live downtown and occasionally go there, it has a wide variety of many plants and accessories , it's going to be missed
Toronto Notting Hill Condominiums | 86.5m | 25s | Lanterra | Arcadis
- Thread starter Automation Gallery
- Start date
Memph
Active Member
The weighted density for their urban areas are 8,900 people per sq km and 13,300 people per sq km respectively.
http://chartingtransport.com/2015/11/26/comparing-the-densities-of-australian-and-european-cities/
Toronto using similar methodology would probably come in around 5,000 people per sq km.
Froggy
Active Member
Being from Europe and having experienced density, I feel like I need to comment about this idealized vision many people have about european cities.
Toronto was built in a very different way. Densities in Rome, Paris and London are much higher because most people live in small apartments. Streets are heavily built up, with no to little space wasted. Toronto, with its tree lined streets and victorian houses is very unique. I guess that if we want to preserve them, we have to find a way to put density somewhere else - in the core, along transit, along "avenues" - and building "30 storey condos" is a solution. In a city like Paris, neighbourhoods like Cabbagetown, the Annex or Kensington would be long gone, sacrificed for the sake of mid-rise density.
Meanwhile, a friend of mine just bought her own place in Paris, within the city limits. She paid the equivalent of $135,000 (85,000 euros) for a 93-square feet unit - yes, that's 8.6 square meters. When doing the renos, she even considered not putting a toilet in her unit and use those located in the hallway in order to save some space. THAT is how a lot of the non-millionaires live in those dense, wonderful and perfect european capitals.
It would also be wrong to think that Paris, London or Rome don't have sprawling suburbs, highways and malls, crumbling social housing highrises and ghettos, over crowded and inaccessible subways, communities under-served by transit, pollution, noise, dirty streets, people parking their car on a crosswalk or even driving their scooter on the sidewalk.
And to be fair, the city Paris hasn't annexed surrounding communities since 1860 and is only 100-sq kilometres, which is approximately six times smaller than Toronto with its fairly recently amalgamated suburbs. A comparison between these two cities is biased.
ProjectEnd
Superstar
WislaHD
Superstar
Oh man, these are surprisingly nice for the arterial suburbs!
WislaHD
Superstar
josephdavidmckee
New Member
This is really too bad, I love Plant World!
Gotzvon
Active Member
From what my sources (Plantworld employees) tell me, the owners are looking around for a place to relocate and reopen the nursery
sappletown
New Member
According to the city staff report, a signalized intersection is proposed at the site's eastern driveway. I development this large would definitely require a full-movement intersection controlled by light signals. http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2016/ey/bgrd/backgroundfile-91177.pdf.
Palma
Senior Member
what happened to this mid size buildings along the Avenues? Even the 6 storey buildings since they now can be constructed with wood
This isn't an 'Avenue'. This is—practically—a suburban expressway with a fairly wide right-of-way in an apartment neighbourhood, with no adjacent low-rise homes to transition to.
42
42
junctionist
Senior Member
The city made it an avenue when it named it. The idea of avenue planning is, in part, to build pedestrian-friendly mixed-use streets where they may not exist presently. Even the far-flung parts of Eglinton could be urbanized with midrise or high-rise buildings with retail on the ground floor. There are streets with higher speed limits in various cities that are still mixed-use, dense and pedestrian friendly.
Well, this proposal is to have ten-storey podiums with the last two storeys stepped back, with ground level retail facing Eglinton, so it is still going to feel something like what the Avenues plan calls for when walking along in front of it. The towers will mostly be hidden overhead, and they don't, as I mentioned, have adjacent low-rise to transition to. This is not the typical property associated with the Avenues Plan in more densely built up parts of town (on much narrower rights-of-way), plus we're likely to have the Crosstown West running along here in the mid-term, so I don't know why we wouldn't want pretty high densities here. With ridership studies predicting a major drop-off of patronage on this portion of the Crosstown, every added household on the street (within reason) will make better use of that.
42
42
ProjectEnd
Superstar
Not that I disagree with anything you're saying re: the heights of buildings and transition to low-rise areas here, but technically, this is an 'Avenue' as named in the study...
Attachments
Yes, I only meant that this is not an Avenue in the way that we understand the built form of the Avenues across 95% of the network.
EDIT: Underlining that fact is that just east of this stretch as shown in that map segment, the section through the parks of the Eglinton Flats ear east of the Humber are also considered an Avenue. With wide open green spaces and no fine grain on either side of the road there, that bit is even further from what's understood to be an Avenue in this planning framework.
42
EDIT: Underlining that fact is that just east of this stretch as shown in that map segment, the section through the parks of the Eglinton Flats ear east of the Humber are also considered an Avenue. With wide open green spaces and no fine grain on either side of the road there, that bit is even further from what's understood to be an Avenue in this planning framework.
42