Toronto Lower Don Lands Redevelopment | ?m | ?s | Waterfront Toronto

[W. K. Lis]

The most important thing to me for Villiers Island is the pedestrian experience. I don't think the height of the buildings is going to affect that much. There are considerations with more people... If there are more people then maybe the sidewalk needs to be wider. With more people the ground level has more people to service so rather than closed off spaces like ground floor units or private amenities, the space can be geared to the public such as retail and restaurants. I think greater density has the potential of a greater pedestrian experience.

I think they should critique Cityplace, West Don Lands, and other places that have been built in the past 20 years and collect what works and doesn't work. Cityplace isn't great but tall buildings isn't usually the complaint... most of the complaints I have heard are about building quality, sound conveyance, pets, and sidewalks. Most of the complaints could occur in a lower density neighborhood.

St. Clair Avenue West used to have wide sidewalks. However, when they re-installed the streetcar right-of-way, to appease the automobile god's disciples, they put in left turn lanes (which didn't exist before) at a cost of losing sidewalk space. Be careful not to anger the automobile gods or their disciples.

 

[jxmith_]

Let’s say we get the streetcar connection we want, that means that Villiers will be anchored by East Harbour to the east and a handful of 80+ storey towers over near Yonge- we’ve already got 10k ppl being added in the Corktown/Canary/Distillery area before anyone even gets their hooks into the land opened up by the Gardiner Hybrid and the rest of Bayside. The current plan isn’t exactly 10 detached McMansions. It’s sufficient density as it is. But it seems that anything short of replicating Liberty Village, then stacking another Liberty Village on top- is going to make some say it’s not dense enough, that were just creating super niche condos for rich people. And that’s when I say fine, no housing- more nature.

I used to see the Portlands as a new nature preserve with some homes and businesses sprinkled in to diversify the life there, but I feel like if we keep adding density on Villiers, the green space and wetlands are going to end up like a crappy parkette a developer added to get extra height.

But hey, we spent a couple billion in rehabilitating these wetlands, let’s maximize density to see how fast we can kill it. While we’re at it, Tommy Thompson Park is pretty spacious too… be a crime not to add some towers there, we can name them after birds.

 

[christiesplits]

I would prefer slightly more density, but I don't think this is an appropriate spot for South Core 60-storey condos either. The unique landscape of the area calls for something more human-scaled.

 

[UtakataNoAnnex]

don't forget the Ferris Wheel!

You know, I thought that I should of included that very thing in my example after I posted it. But thanks for putting that out there so I didn't need to, lol.

 

[evandyk]

I few more buildings, closer together, and more of them closer to the higher side of the range is probably better than towers. Plus then you don't have to fight with the federal government over the island airport approach.

 

[Northern Light]

I few more buildings, closer together, and more of them closer to the higher side of the range is probably better than towers. Plus then you don't have to fight with the federal government over the island airport approach.

Something to remember here is that under Toronto's current planning regime (and it's similar elsewhere), as you increase height, minimum separation distances also rise, particularly when you transition from mid-rise to hirise.

The midrise guidelines generally call for a minimum 20M separation distance, but the tall building guidelines call for 25M.

Broadly, the 20M guideline applies up to 11s in height.

Of course, there a host of other rules around height, such as angular plane that can come into play as well.

There likely is room to tweak here, if desired......ie. 6s to 7s etc. But larger moves trigger lots of problems.

Not merely the 'rules' either.

Infrastructure is being designed and has been designed with a certain level of development in mind (sewers, watermains, electrical distribution etc.)
Re-opening the proverbial can-of-worms, may result in design changes, additional costs and some measure of delay.

 

[Nadnev]

For me, the ideal urban density is that of Barcelona, Oslo, Paris or Stockholm; at 5 - 10 storeys the scale just feels right. With this scale, population densities can support transit and solid amenities, but you don't feel boxed in, wind tunnels are less-severe. The experience is much more pleasant.
I prefer the current planned scale for the island.

 

[JasonParis]

I worry that Villiers Island could end up a bit like The Canary District - pleasant enough to look at, but largely devoid of any critical mass, and punctuated by pretty art pieces. Density could certainly be higher, but it's also about about a thousand intangibles that are hard to "develop," but not impossible either.

 

[Northern Light]

For me, the ideal urban density is that of Barcelona, Oslo, Paris or Stockholm; at 5 - 10 storeys the scale just feels right. With this scale, population densities can support transit and solid amenities, but you don't feel boxed in, wind tunnels are less-severe. The experience is much more pleasant.
I prefer the current planned scale for the island.

I totally get what your saying; and agree w/the gist; but I do want to note that it's important not to conflate height and density.

Paris is the densest major city in Europe (Cities over 1M population); Barcelona is number 2; meanwhile Stockholm is well down the list (technically just under 1M people, but I digress); it's less than 1/3 as dense as Barcelona!

Oslo isn't dense at all, it's 1/3 as dense as Toronto.

 

[W. K. Lis]

I worry that Villiers Island could end up a bit like The Canary District - pleasant enough to look at, but largely devoid of any critical mass, and punctuated by pretty art pieces. Density could certainly be higher, but it's also about about a thousand intangibles that are hard to "develop," but not impossible either.

Schools with playgrounds, libraries, and community centres would be needed. What is needed is small street front stores, near the bus and streetcar stops. Not the BIG box stores with asphalt deserts around them. Something that the mom-n-pop stores can operate without BIG leases that only chain or franchises can afford. That includes bars, coffee shops, barber and beauty shops, and convenience stores (that can sell small supplies of beer or wine). Even pool halls, bowling alleys, and other shocking facilities like banquet halls, churches, mosques, and synagogues thrown in. With small parking lots (mostly handicapped slots) and street parking for the automobile addicted, and bicycle racks & benches.

The big box stores should be near the Ontario Line station, or closer to Lake Shore Blvd. East.

 

[AlexBozikovic]

The Canary District - pleasant enough to look at, but largely devoid of any critical mass, and punctuated by pretty art pieces.

This view of WDL/Canary is shared by several insiders I have spoken to.

There just aren’t, and won’t be, enough people there. Why? The density is too low; too many people drive, because they live in condos with plentiful parking; there are few neighbourhood amenities; and the area is surrounded by dead zones of infrastructure and low-density housing.

All these factors are likely to be repeated on Villiers.

The only places in Toronto with a lot of street life - including King West - have the opposite qualities.

 

[Ward8]

The midrise guidelines generally call for a minimum 20M separation distance, but the tall building guidelines call for 25M.

Broadly, the 20M guideline applies up to 11s in height.

Of course, there a host of other rules around height, such as angular plane that can come into play as well.

They should seriously consider throwing a lot of this in the bin for Villers island. It will be so well parked when complete that the impetus for these rules wont really apply. The maximum distance from nature, sunshine and water will be around 100 meters. Most people will be steps away from these amenities. Furthermore there are no existing homes that would be shadowed. In this case, there is no real down side to maximizing ground coverage and having more intimate pedestrian friendly right of ways.

I worry that Villiers Island could end up a bit like The Canary District - pleasant enough to look at, but largely devoid of any critical mass, and punctuated by pretty art pieces. Density could certainly be higher, but it's also about about a thousand intangibles that are hard to "develop," but not impossible either.

There just aren’t, and won’t be, enough people there. Why? The density is too low;

Canary District is so far away from completion that it's hard to judge as devoid of critical mass. I don't have an exact unit count, but It's probably filled out to less than half of its eventual population. I've been there many times and seen a lively front street. That said, there are lessons that need to be learned from the Canary district. There isn't enough ground coverage, the right of ways are generally too wide, and the lots are too big. Ideally there would be many more developers, of all sizes, building many different types of buildings.

This view of WDL/Canary is shared by several insiders I have spoken to.

Do you mean developer insiders? Don't they tend to favour more obese forms of urbanism exactly like the Canary District? I feel like the've never met a giant blank wall of street level glass that they didn't like. Or an oversized retail unit.

All that said, the proposed density for Villers is too low. Its physical separation from the rest of the city will require much more density to make it work as a vibrant urban space.

 

[daniel_kryz]

Many interesting comments here. I would say that even though there are good examples of high-rise districts, like Vancouver's Yaletown or the West End, this place could also be like Vancouver's Olympic Village... with vibrant street life, natural landscaping, and great public places... complemented by nice architecture.

I also want to just say how excited I am that we're getting this! It's such a great accomplishment for Toronto and I think one that'll make us proud!

 

[christiesplits]

I worry that Villiers Island could end up a bit like The Canary District - pleasant enough to look at, but largely devoid of any critical mass, and punctuated by pretty art pieces. Density could certainly be higher, but it's also about about a thousand intangibles that are hard to "develop," but not impossible either.

I suspect the new office spaces will breathe some life into the area on weekdays. On weekends, the neighbourhood should attract daytrippers on the way to the waterfront amenities, including Cherry Beach. I think it will be a much more animated community than Canary District.

 

[W. K. Lis]

Thought originally that Billy Bishop Airport would prevent high-rises in the Don Lands, however, the flight paths veer away from them.

From link. Dated November, 2015.