Toronto Rail Deck District | 227.23m | 70s | Craft Dev Corp | Sweeny &Co

[ciceror]

The problem with the number of condos in this Project is the entrance and exit of this ENTIRE complex dumps onto Front Street West.
Unlike other developments you don't have an option here to feed into more than one street
The density is insane and it is a nightmare for traffic for not only residents but also the people who come to the park and now you have the GO station people too! It's crazy

I understand people have problems with that, but the dense Manhattan feel seems very attractive to me.

 

[karledice]

I understand people have problems with that, but the dense Manhattan feel seems very attractive to me.

If they can allow traffic access through Spadina and or Fort York in addition to Front it would have been easier to accept for me

A worth of residents from 10 buildings plus 4 from the Well and all the regular traffic of park goers and the GO crowd all dump into Front is just too crazy I think

 

[ProjectEnd]

Who's forcing anyone to drive?

 

[WislaHD]

If Fengate is involved in this project, then the project got a lot more serious overnight.

It's not just some merchant developers leading this project anymore, but institutional capital.

 

[karledice]

Who's forcing anyone to drive?

People are not forced to drive, they just choose to
Liberty Village is a prime example of pushing traffic onto 1 street
It's a mess during 730-9am and 3-6pm
And it's a lot less density than 10 buildings proposed here + other projects (the well) + people who come for the park + GO people

 

[ProjectEnd]

People are not forced to drive, they just choose to
Liberty Village is a prime example of pushing traffic onto 1 street
It's a mess during 730-9am and 3-6pm
And it's a lot less density than 10 buildings proposed here + other projects (the well) + people who come for the park + GO people

So why should I care about their sitting in traffic?

 

[Amare]

So why should I care about their sitting in traffic?

The traffic becomes a problem when it starts to effect the transit. At that point it's a whole swath of people who are being effected by those who are actively choosing to sit in traffic.

Especially in a city where rapid transit coverage is pretty damn bad.

To be honest this proposal just needs to go away, there's no where near enough park land (which for all intents and purposes is the main point of decking over the rail corridor).

 

[ciceror]

This argument is effectively being litigated at the LPAT right now, and I doubt the City will prevail

Are you saying there is actually a chance that this proposal is going to be a reality, not a pipe dream?

 

[Automation Gallery]

To be honest this proposal just needs to go away, there's no where near enough park land (which for all intents and purposes is the main point of decking over the rail corridor).

You're kidding..lol
i don't know if you live in Toronto but 2 things I've heard all my life is how to bury the Gardiner and cover up the Rail Corridor

 

[karledice]

So why should I care about their sitting in traffic?

You may not, but people who live in that neighbourhood and work in that neighbourhood do
So planning needs to revolve around the residents impacted in the proposed area and in this case the proposed area cannot support that much traffic dumping onto one street

 

[allengeorge]

You may not, but people who live in that neighbourhood and work in that neighbourhood do
So planning needs to revolve around the residents impacted in the proposed area and in this case the proposed area cannot support that much traffic dumping onto one street

Maybe the takeaway should be that “using cars on Front for personal travel isn’t supported or recommended.”

This density is fine. Residents shouldn’t expect to be able to drive everywhere if they live here; it isn’t Markham or Brampton.

 

[ProjectEnd]

The traffic becomes a problem when it starts to effect the transit. At that point it's a whole swath of people who are being effected by those who are actively choosing to sit in traffic.

Especially in a city where rapid transit coverage is pretty damn bad.

To be honest this proposal just needs to go away, there's no where near enough park land (which for all intents and purposes is the main point of decking over the rail corridor).

You may not, but people who live in that neighbourhood and work in that neighbourhood do
So planning needs to revolve around the residents impacted in the proposed area and in this case the proposed area cannot support that much traffic dumping onto one street

So make it punitively expensive to drive. Any tax leveed would go towards transit.

You're really giving me this vibe:

 

[ADRM]

Are you saying there is actually a chance that this proposal is going to be a reality, not a pipe dream?

100%. The proponents are real developers with real development and construction experience, the capital partners are real capital partners who aren't in the business of mucking around, and millions of dollars has already been sunk into architecture and legal services, among others.

This is as real as a project gets, even if it's taking an unorthodox journey through the planning process.

 

[karledice]

So make it punitively expensive to drive. Any tax leveed would go towards transit.

You're really giving me this vibe:

It is not up to the LPAT to raise the tax on gas. And they cannot raise it within this particular neighbourhood this project is being proposed.
Raising tax is a separate issue and has nothing to do with this particular project

We are not discussing whether or not it's better to use cars vs. public transit in society. I think it is better to use transit but the reality is what's happening in Liberty Village.
We are discussing what the proposed density will do to Front St W which is part of approval decision evaluation of the project like shadow, wind, heritage assessment etc.

And assuming the body evaluating this project for permits doesn't have the authority to make those macro changes like taxation on cars/gas in Toronto

 

[Northern Light]

So make it punitively expensive to drive. Any tax leveed would go towards transit.

You're really giving me this vibe:

We would agree on not orienting development towards cars; and for that matter on tolls, and other measures as well.

But it's important to step back for a moment.

IF these development incorporate substantial parking; then it's entirely possible traffic will get worse; in the still mostly fossil fuel burning age, the resulting pollution is something all residents, including pedestrians, transit users and cyclists breathe.

It's also a legitimate point that it may impede the movement of some surface transit.

****

I think; IF some form of development goes ahead here, these sites really need to be parking-free.

That will dictate that the vast majority of prospective residents will not own cars/drive; the few who do will either use carsharing, or reserve a spot off-site, for periodic use.

It's much more practical to limit the desire to drive at the design stage than try to shift behaviour once owners/tenants who drive move in to the area.

In the event parking is tolerated in this development, and it goes ahead, which I would see a mistake; then it is legitimate to talk about how to manage the resulting traffic, not for the reason of being benevolent to drivers, but
to minimize the adverse impact on all road users (drivers/pedestrians/cyclists/transit/delivery vehicles etc.).

Poorly thought out design that induces congestion serves no one well.