Toronto Grand Park Village | 133m | 40s | Minto Group | Wallman Architects

Automation Gallery

Automation Gallery

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
May 5, 2007
Messages
12,654
Reaction score
3,279
Location
South Parkdale
10 AUDLEY ST
Ward 06 - Etob. York District

Proposed amendments to the Official Plan and Zoning Bylaws to permit the redevelopment of the subject properties for a mixed use development comprised of 5 separate residential building complexes ranging in height from 6 to 32 storeys. A number of 1 and 2 storey industrial and commercial buildings would be demolished.
Proposed Use --- # of Storeys --- # of Units ---
Applications:
Type Number Date Submitted Status
OPA & Rezoning 16 168925 WET 06 OZ Jun 6, 2016 Application Received

upload_2016-6-7_5-31-28.png
 

Attachments

  • upload_2016-6-7_5-31-28.png
    upload_2016-6-7_5-31-28.png
    1.8 MB · Views: 3,352
Interesting. More pressure to change aging industrial to residential (adjacent to existing residential) within walking distance of Mimico GO station. The City is going to face more and more of this.

42
 
The massing and built form look lumpy - as in LV lumpy cramming as much into the site as one can. Expecting more from aA.

AoD
 
So it's aA calling the shots as to the density?

To my eyes they are trying accommodate a density requested by the developer, while pushing the taller buildings away from the low-rise residential neighbourhood to the north. At the same time, the tallest building is pretty close to the low-rise residential south of the railroad tracks, but as it's "north" of them (Toronto north, 17° off true north), shadowing will likely only be an issue on late evenings at the height of summer.

What other way could aA accommodate the requested density than to go even higher, and then get into shadowing issues with the neighbourhood to the north?

42
 
Grossly inappropriate development given the built form of Mimico all around. Mid rises and townhouses are all that should be allowed.
 
interchange42 said:
So it's aA calling the shots as to the density?

To my eyes they are trying accommodate a density requested by the developer, while pushing the taller buildings away from the low-rise residential neighbourhood to the north. At the same time, the tallest building is pretty close to the low-rise residential south of the railroad tracks, but as it's "north" of them (Toronto north, 17° off true north), shadowing will likely only be an issue on late evenings at the height of summer.

What other way could aA accommodate the requested density than to go even higher, and then get into shadowing issues with the neighbourhood to the north?

42
Click to expand...

If they are going to cram this much density, one'd hope that they went for height instead of multiple slabs with a problematical separation (15m between the slabs - 12 if you go by balcony to balcony) - like I've said, this is LV stuff and the form doesn't work well. Height of course will induce shadowing issues, but it certainly beats the proposed built form.

AoD
 
Other than height, which I think will be reduced for approval (isn't it almost always the case?), what immediately stands out for me http://urbantoronto.ca/sites/defaul...efault/images/projects/22118/22118-76619.jpeg is the empty and level Judson Street space in the background. If ever there was a case made for that space to become parkland, this picture illustrates it. And more! Decking over the present, let alone expanded GO servicing tracks becomes more of a no-brainer. As to why this hasn't been proposed as a required off-set to this density of development is curious. The City shouldn't be required to build it, nor should Metrolinx unless they themselves wish to develop above it. Decking for park use means minimal load-bearing on a supporting structure, and no need to sink high-rise sized caissons into the underlying area, or need for services. Parkland there would also be an offering to the surrounding community, especially if sections of it extended all the way across the tracks to the south, thus *joining* the community access, rather than isolating.

Change is inevitable, but there's ways of using that improve the community, not just load it.
 
You're suggesting decking over the VIA and GO Willowbrook yards, right? Who would pay for that? There's no reason that it would be any cheaper than the Rail Deck Park being touted for north of CityPlace right now, and they're talking hundred of millions for that.

42
 
interchange42 said:
You're suggesting decking over the VIA and GO Willowbrook yards, right? Who would pay for that? There's no reason that it would be any cheaper than the Rail Deck Park being touted for north of CityPlace right now, and they're talking hundred of millions for that.

42
Click to expand...
*Parts* of the Mimico Yards, especially the proposed expansion for servicing the RER electrics adjacent to Judson. It would be financed as an offset condition of approval for density for the various developers involved in the overall cluster.

Section 37.
https://www1.toronto.ca/City Of Toronto/City Planning/SIPA/Files/pdf/S/SECTION37_Final_JK.pdf

A footnote: The City's absurd approval of townhouses on the present site of ML Readymix on Judson St is going to the OMB, being taken there by Metrolinx. And the prime testimony for Metrolinx will come from the City's own Planning Department, who were against the approval. For obvious reasons, as discussed in a number of other forum strings at this site, Metrolinx will win this appeal, and the City and the questionable case for the developer and connections to at least one councillor will be laid bare in proceedings.

One of the ways (and this has been suggested by the local community orgs) to ameliorate many of the locals' concerns is to make it parkland there. I say take that one step further, (and Metrolinx also likes the idea of parkland on that location) is to increase the parkland space and damp noise concerns of the expanded rail maintenance operation by Metrolinx expropriating the Judson property(ies), digging slightly below grade for that section of yard, and decking it over for parkland.

This suggestion will be made at some point, as Metrolinx is very much in favour of intensification of areas adjacent to stations, and this would be a move to satisfy most everyone, and also allow further decking over later for Metrolinx themselves to utilize the air-rights for commercial/residential to recover costs and actually see a return on investment.

There's no reason that it would be any cheaper than the Rail Deck Park being touted for north of CityPlace right now, and they're talking hundred of millions for that.
Click to expand...
The concept isn't manic in the least, Tory's approach is.

Many cities have done exactly this, and Oxford Properties are deeply involved in the Hudson Yards in New York (a fascinating development) and have a very real interest in Toronto's core.

Isn't it just a little odd that so many other *world class cities* can do this and Toronto can't? And yet Toronto has world class cost of land. The taxpayer stands to *gain* from effective planning and leadership, not pay for it.

But alas, that would require something a bit more dynamic that what we now have here.

Toronto's new CRE zoning category has yet to be used while Vancouver is far ahead in this nation on it, and the US much further ahead still.

New York even included a chapter on mixed Commercial/Res/Industrial zoning, *even within the same building* in this report: (Chapter starting page 35)
http://council.nyc.gov/downloads/pdf/NYEO.pdf

Discussion by Planet Citizen here:
http://www.planetizen.com/node/72451

And lo and behold! On that linked Planet Citizen page is this:
Toronto Wants a Deck Park to Span Downtown Rail Tracks
 
Last edited:
I'm quite familiar with Section 37. What you wouldn't get from either this proposal or the 39 Newcastle one is enough money to make a serious dent is a deck budget. If Planning and Council were to accept the general size of the two proposals, you might get a few million in S37 from 39 Newcastle and possibly several million from this one… but there's a good chance you'd need tens of millions for what you're suggesting. Meanwhile, you're also suggesting that Metrolinx spend more now by digging below grade for something that they might get a return on in the future… or might not. Any park replacing expropriated properties would cost more dollars too, all to the west of Royal York, when that area has seen zero development pressure.

Everything we're looking at here is east of Royal York by one or more blocks, and is closer to the undeveloped Grand Park, from which this development takes its name. It will be that site and the Greenway proposed along the tracks where Section 37 money from these two proposals will almost certainly be spent, and where it will more than likely provide greater benefits for the same amount of money. (No need to waste money on a deck: it can all go into park facilities and landscaping.)

I do not see any need for the grand and expensive plans you're pushing for the Judson site—it only needs that ridiculous Council decision to be reversed by the OMB—when improvements that would more directly benefit residents of these new developments would go unfunded.

42
 
interchange42 said:
Any park replacing expropriated properties would cost more dollars too, all to the west of Royal York, when that area has seen zero development pressure.
Click to expand...
Well thank God for that! So the application that City Council approved doesn't count as "pressure"?

It's no mistake that the City included the Judson St sector in the study:
MIMICO
-JUDSON REGENERATION AREA STUDY STUDY AREA
https://www1.toronto.ca/City Of Tor...on_Initial Findings Presentation_v2_small.pdf

Take a look at the linked pic of your own files I provided earlier:
http://urbantoronto.ca/sites/defaul...efault/images/projects/22118/22118-76619.jpeg

The densest part of the project is farthest away from Grand Ave Park. The Judson section, albeit necessary for when the bridge over Royal York Rd is widened north for access to the new service tracks, is the closest area available for parkland. It might disappear if Metrolinx takes the land that appears necessary. This isn't just about "parkland"...it's about utilizing open space in a way that benefits all, just as the West-side Access was decked over on Manhattan years ago. It stems noise, it connects communities, it increases green space.

Perhaps my vision is not that of a Torontonian, even though I've spent most of my life here? Smaller cities than Toronto in the UK have done this, US cities have done it (some smaller than Toronto) I can't see why such visions are so alien here?

[...]
The Mimico-Judson Secondary Plan identified in Recommendation number 1 contains the four following municipal infrastructure projects that are anticipated to be delivered through the development of private lands:
(1)
Grand Avenue Extension
; (2)
Mimico-Judson Greenway
; (3)
New Public Park
; and (4) Pedestrian and Cycling Overpass over Royal York Road.
These infrastructure projects are intended to support future development.
Staff will report on any financial impacts that may be necessary to deliver
these infrastructure projects, as required.
[...]
Click to expand...
http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2016/pg/bgrd/backgroundfile-90450.pdf
 
Arguments against decking over anything anywhere near this area aren't evidence of timidity; they're illustrations of reality and pragmatism (and real pragmatism, rather than John Tory's faux brand of pragmatism).

Hudson Yards is a truly laughable comparison for this site; it's a central location smack dab in the middle of a teeming metropolis and is an office development anchored by numerous Fortune 500 companies relocating and centralizing their NYC office space there. It almost couldn't be more different from this proposed development.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top