Dead end for a square?

[M II A II R II K]

Dead end for a square?


Mar 12 2010

http://www.thestar.com/opinion/editorials/article/778717--dead-end-for-a-square

##############################################

Among Toronto's public squares, the open space at the northwest corner of Yonge St. and Eglinton Ave. seems an orphan. Irregular and windswept, this modest square is little appreciated. But it's far from clear that the best option for improvement is to cover much of this space with a three-storey shopping complex, as North York Community Council decided earlier this week – over the objections of area residents.

The proposed mall and the addition of extra floors to surrounding office towers was backed by city staff on grounds that these changes would improve the "public realm." Perhaps so, but there may be far better ways to make this unloved square more desirable than glassing it in and opening shops. Serious thought should be given to other options before city council gives final approval later this month.

Its prime location at the centre point of the city – a crossroads of two major thoroughfares – would seem to argue in favour of retaining open public space at Yonge and Eglinton. With yet more high-rise development planned, the need for a shared gathering place is clear.

The developer, RioCan Real Estate Investment Trust, has agreed to cover the proposed mall with a rooftop green space that would be accessible to the public. But that is small consolation for building over an existing public space at ground level. If this area is built over and replaced with a shopping mall, it will be difficult to reverse course and turn it back into community space. Once gone, this square could be lost forever.

##############################################

 

[kettal]

The current square is as appealing as a parking lot. What's the better alternative then?

 

[GenerationW]

Since when has Yonge & Eglinton ever been in North York?

 

[M II A II R II K]

It doesn't have a definable open public space there like the other squares. It's basically an intersection with large sidewalk space on one corner.

 

[the_yellow_dart]

Maybe they got confused between North York and North Toronto?

 

[CDL.TO]

It says "North York Community Council", and the north west corner of Yonge and Eglinton is indeed under the jurisdiction of that particular community council.

 

[scarberiankhatru]

North York Community Council does have a bit of an oddly-shaped jurisdiction, presumably to offset the low population in Etobicoke (since North York, Scarborough, and Toronto have roughly similar populations).

When the Eglinton bus bay land is redeveloped, I think we'll regret turning this square - even though it's a concrete mess right now - into a boring glass box retail appendage and losing the open space. One reason is that Yonge and Eglinton don't meet at right angles, so horizon views are already a bit more filled up with buildings than other 'important' intersections (such as Yonge & Bloor). There's more to urban than filling up space with stuff.

 

[the_yellow_dart]

I see what you're saying, but I don't think 11 degrees makes a big difference. 45 makes a difference, look at Weston and Lawrence or Weston and Jane.

 

[scarberiankhatru]

I see what you're saying, but I don't think 11 degrees makes a big difference. 45 makes a difference, look at Weston and Lawrence or Weston and Jane.

Did I say a big difference or did I say a bit?

The desire to fill up the square exists partially because the towers stop so suddenly going west of Eglinton, as if the city just falls away (and the towers are not continuous to the north and south, either), but even redeveloping just the bus bay land will almost completely enclose the intersection and make the square basically disappear. The more towers you build, the more even 11 degrees is visible (go look at Yonge near Sheppard/Finch). The square isn't 'necessary' now but could become so with more towers. There's nothing at Jane & Weston but houses shorter than trees and Lawrence & Weston is scattered and doesn't have a very defined streetwall. When roads aren't perfectly straight, a bit more care needs to be paid to the relationship between streetwalls and open space.

 

[samsonyuen]

The old city of Toronto had that funny jagged boundary. Technically, Yonge and Eglinton was in old City of Toronto (IIRC, the boundary on Yonge was as far north as Lawrence), but they just made Eglinton the boundary of the North community council. Anyone have an old map with the boundaries?

 

[Observer Walt]

Getting a bit off topic, but ... the former City of Toronto ran north on Yonge to the top of the Hogg's Hollow hill, roughly at Teddington Park. North of that was North York. There was a building on Yonge that literally straddled the boundary line, and paid taxes in two municipalities.

 

[the_yellow_dart]

IMHO, the angle at Yonge and Finch is not noticable simply because everything is set so far back and the streets are so wide.

 

[Red Mosquito]

The boundries of the 4 community councils, are based on on the current Ward boundries, which were based on the federal riding boundries as of 1997( 2 to each federal riding).

Scarborough is the easiest to visualize, cause it is exactly the same area as the old city of Scarborough.

North York community council consists of wards 8, 9, 10, 23, 24, 33, 34, 15, 16, 25 and 26. So North York lost the area between the Humber and the 400 and the Keele and Lawrence area, but gained North Toronto, Leaside and Thorncliffe and a small part of the old City of York(Oakwood).

Toronto and East York community council consists of wards 14, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32. Toronto lost High Park, the Junction, Earlscourt and North Toronto, but gained most of East York.

The Etobicoke York community council annexed the most of former cities. It includes all of Etobicoke, wards 7, 12, and 11 which were mostly in North York and York, and wards 13 and 17, which were mostly in Toronto.

Hope that clears it up a bit.

 

[scarberiankhatru]

IMHO, the angle at Yonge and Finch is not noticable simply because everything is set so far back and the streets are so wide.

Your opinion doesn't change the fact that it is noticeable. The setbacks of buildings along Yonge aggravate the angle because almost all of them are aligned with the east/west streets and not Yonge. When you're looking up or down Yonge, you see one building on your right and every building on your left, and since the towers march along a good 4km of Yonge, they extend 'across' more of the horizon than at Yonge & Eglinton, where the towers don't spread far from the intersection except to the east and so do not - yet - encroach upon the intersection. The square is visually expendable now but we might need or at least want the open space in the future.

The boundries of the 4 community councils, are based on on the current Ward boundries, which were based on the federal riding boundries as of 1997( 2 to each federal riding).

And the 4 'communities' gained or lost wards to equalize the area and population in each. Etobicoke-York is really the Etobicoke-York-Toronto-North York Community Council, for instance.

As for riding boundaries, I hope they're adjusted soon because ward populations are getting seriously out of whack - by 2011, we'll likely have a few wards literally twice the size of other wards.

 

[Dan416]

As for riding boundaries, I hope they're adjusted soon because ward populations are getting seriously out of whack - by 2011, we'll likely have a few wards literally twice the size of other wards.

Ontario itself should be gaining a lot of seats in the next adjustment, including Toronto I'm sure, definitely Mississauga and Brampton, and parts of York Region I imagine.