News   Dec 07, 2021
 302     0 
News   Dec 07, 2021
 504     0 
News   Dec 06, 2021
 3.7K     4 

Bombardier Downsview Lands (Northcrest-Canada Lands, Henning Larsen)

DopeyFish

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jul 25, 2017
Messages
179
Reaction score
255
Can anyone show me a neighborhood anywhere in the developed world with that sort of population density? Even the built up areas of Hong Kong are only 40,000/km2.

humber bay shores exists

it's going to have around 100k/km2 with an LRT station and a GO station and 2 roads, far less than downsview
edit: ok i may have been a bit off, but it will be roughly 52,000 condos/km2 so i dunno, 62.5-67.5k/km2?

so then i guess I'm asking for roughly 120k people on site?
 
Last edited:

DirectionNorth

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Nov 11, 2020
Messages
451
Reaction score
849
Location
Nosing into something
humber bay shores exists

it's going to have around 100k/km2 with an LRT station and a GO station and 2 roads, far less than downsview
edit: ok i may have been a bit off, but it will be roughly 52,000 condos/km2 so i dunno, 62.5-67.5k/km2?

so then i guess I'm asking for roughly 120k people on site?
Sounds reasonable.
 

Undead

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Sep 3, 2020
Messages
1,678
Reaction score
3,702
Location
Condoland
humber bay shores exists

it's going to have around 100k/km2 with an LRT station and a GO station and 2 roads, far less than downsview
edit: ok i may have been a bit off, but it will be roughly 52,000 condos/km2 so i dunno, 62.5-67.5k/km2?

so then i guess I'm asking for roughly 120k people on site?
88k, assuming 1.7 people per unit. IIRC, we're building well over 100k in the Entertainment District.

The question being: how will you ensure that amenities will be provided, and that we'll build places people want to live? The only way to get to 100k/km2 is shoebox condos, which is not somewhere people want to live.

Can anyone show me a neighborhood anywhere in the developed world with that sort of population density? Even the built up areas of Hong Kong are only 40,000/km2.

Edit: My research found that for residential area, the density was 100,000/km2. But this area will have jobs as well, and they do that by stuffing the poorest 5-10% into literal cages, and by having a median unit size of 430 square feet. Not a model we want to emulate.
Shoebox units are a very valid concern, but I think in Toronto's current market, a building of any height will be mostly shoeboxes.
 

DirectionNorth

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Nov 11, 2020
Messages
451
Reaction score
849
Location
Nosing into something
88k, assuming 1.7 people per unit. IIRC, we're building well over 100k in the Entertainment District.
Is that a good thing?
Shoebox units are a very valid concern, but I think in Toronto's current market, a building of any height will be mostly shoeboxes.
I maintain the position that accepting bad outcomes as inevitable leads to feedback loops, and the whole thing becomes a self fulfilling prophecy.

You're right, but I think mid-rises would:
1. Set a precedent for Toronto. "We can build missing middle now!"
2. It would still create lots of density. In fact, at the current rate, there's going to be under 4000 population growth per year for 30 years. I'd like to see the timeline accelerated to 15 years, and yearly growth increased to 8000.
 

Al Ski

New Member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 14, 2021
Messages
12
Reaction score
13
All wonderful visions and unicorns..
In the end, hedge funds and REITS will continue to build whatever max-profit crap they want (with minimal 'park' space and 'art' thingys) and everyone will be content to debate the application of spandrel and faux brick in the resulting tragedies.
Every. Single. Thread.
It's comical.
It's as if the bar has been set at ground level.
 
Last edited:

abovegrade

New Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jun 7, 2021
Messages
18
Reaction score
42
The one advantage to going with super-density at Downsview is that there is next to no NIMBYs in the area. In a housing crisis, why not take advantage of areas that are ripe for this kind of development, and unlikely to start a neighborhood war?
But there have been countless NIMBY’s at the meetings, speaking against this at a lot of the meetings. Albeit not as deafening as 2150 lake shore
 

Al Ski

New Member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 14, 2021
Messages
12
Reaction score
13
The one advantage to going with super-density at Downsview is that there is next to no NIMBYs in the area. In a housing crisis, why not take advantage of areas that are ripe for this kind of development, and unlikely to start a neighborhood war?
The very next post proved me correct!

Soopertawls!!
 

allengeorge

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jun 27, 2019
Messages
1,020
Reaction score
2,379
But there have been countless NIMBY’s at the meetings, speaking against this at a lot of the meetings. Albeit not as deafening as 2150 lake shore
I haven’t been to the meetings, but do see some of this come through in the survey comments.

That’s a big reason I (like some others above) would like to see dense-grid mid-rise at this location, because it breaks the current Toronto mindset of “tall and sprawl”. A lively non-tower neighborhood with amenities can be an example in future NIMBY rebuttals.

Let’s see what happens. Reading the article, and looking at what was promised for Downsview Park and housing development in the area vs. what we got (a sad strip of low-density townhomes and no retail) - I’m not the most optimistic. But one can hope!
 

AlexBozikovic

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Aug 14, 2011
Messages
471
Reaction score
1,928
I’ve spoken to the developers and the design team, and they all seem totally committed to this vision.

The real danger is this scenario: they get the plan approved with the parks and density set. Then they sell, or take on development partners, and the urban design evolves into something more conventional, and worse: townhouses plus towers with value-engineered parks and wide streets. Because that’s what the city understands and will approve.

What’s happening to East Harbour right now is a similar story.
 

allengeorge

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jun 27, 2019
Messages
1,020
Reaction score
2,379
Because that’s what the city understands and will approve.

What’s happening to East Harbour right now is a similar story.
It’s really unfortunate that the city is the one setting the roadblocks! That this is happening in East Harbour today makes me even less optimistic about this plan :(
 

daniel_kryz

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Mar 10, 2020
Messages
315
Reaction score
479
It’s really unfortunate that the city is the one setting the roadblocks! That this is happening in East Harbour today makes me even less optimistic about this plan :(
How is the city setting up roadblocks? I'm not very satisfied with the East Harbour vision, but is it the city's fault? Does it have anything to do with planning policy, or is this Cadillac Fairview's fault?
 

allengeorge

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jun 27, 2019
Messages
1,020
Reaction score
2,379
How is the city setting up roadblocks? I'm not very satisfied with the East Harbour vision, but is it the city's fault? Does it have anything to do with planning policy, or is this Cadillac Fairview's fault?
This was in response to the following quote (emphasis mine):
Then they sell, or take on development partners, and the urban design evolves into something more conventional, and worse: townhouses plus towers with value-engineered parks and wide streets. Because that’s what the city understands and will approve.
 

daniel_kryz

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Mar 10, 2020
Messages
315
Reaction score
479
This was in response to the following quote (emphasis mine):
I understand what you mean about being disappointed because developers don't give us what they promised. My question is what does the city have to do with this? Is it insufficient planning policy, or a laissez-faire approach during the approvals process? What exactly are you talking about?
 

Top