softstyll
New Member
In 20 years, can an area of the City developed so aggressively actually be a nice place to live?
|
|
|
Golden Mile Secondary Plan Study
- Thread starter Northern Light
- Start date
W. K. Lis
Superstar
Too bad the surrounding neighbourhood will still be sprawling urban sprawl, with cul-de-sacs that discourage walking.
mdu
Active Member
It'll be NYCC all over again.
MrGoose
Active Member
If the Golden Mile is going to be this dense, in 30 years, we'll be bemoaning why we didn't grade separate the LRT here either.
Northern Light
Superstar
Would it be possible to take a less negative tack?
With few exceptions, most areas of the City were built-up in very close to the same time periods.
Often in similar architectural styles, with similar materials.
Yet few bemoan our many Victorian-home lined streets in the central part of Toronto.
No, this will not be the same.
It will be much larger; in scale/height; and cover a somewhat larger area than would have been typical of previous boom periods.
Though the prevailing architectural style will doubtless evolve, even over 20 or so years.
****
Certainly, its possible, when we get to more concrete proposals, site plans, detailed renders, and actual construction that we will see some half-baked or otherwise unacceptable proposals brought forward.
But its simply grossly premature to think it will all turn out badly when there isn't a single final building proposal, let alone one finished construction.
By all means, lets get on the case of developers and planners, if the details look schlock. But let's not throw them under the bus saying it will be, when there's no evidence to support that as yet.
****
On the subject of NYCC..........has it turned out as some unlivable hell?
I mean, its got the best circulation library in the City; a nice public square, a great indoor pool; 2 subways, 6 different grocery stores in walking distance, cinemas, and its about to get a brand new streetscape, human-sized roadway, and cycle tracks, all going well.
Its not exactly a penal colony.
Yes, some of the architecture is unfortunate; its not all an unmitigated disaster; but there are a few that .....well.....just look the other way as you walk by.............
But few areas of the City don't have some of those.........
This I'm inclined to agree with..........the Transportation studies envision a number of improvements, but almost all modelling suggests transit capacity will be pinched in the area at/near build-out.
44 North
Senior Member
Hm I haven't seen that. Where was this reported? N/S routes it's a given, they're packed today and will be in the future. But Crosstown I thought would be fine for 40+yrs.
Northern Light
Superstar
Well.........yes/no/maybe.
LOL
Here's a link looking back at the modelling that led to the Transportation Master Plan:
Volume to Capacity graphics start at page 165.
All show some portion of Eglinton in Red (meaning over capacity).
That is based on 2-car sets and 5-minute headway.
So that need can be met, in whole or in part by going to 3 cars, or tighter headways.
The underground stations are built for the 3-car version; I don't believe the outdoor section is set-up for that currently.
Aside from alterations; additional vehicles would have to be ordered.
But there is a further challenge in that the surface section is not proposed for ATC operation and the modelling that supports 3-car alignments on tighter headways in the core section may not support the extension of that service to the line's periphery.
But it might.....
Text from the report: (p. 171)
An analysis was conducted on the Preferred TMP scenario factoring in the growth along the Eglinton Avenue corridor beyond the study area including the Don Mills Crossing (DMC) Secondary Plan. When combining the growth in ridership anticipated by these two (2) studies, it is notable that the current plans for two (2)-car LRT trainsets operating at five (5) minute headways may not be sufficient with the full build out of these areas. It may be necessary to plan for service of up to three (3) minute headways and/or longer three (3)-car LRT trainsets.
As seen in Figure 9-12, the combination of both the GMSP Preferred Land Use Solution plus the Don Mills Crossing (DMC) Secondary Plan recommendations will result in ridership exceeding the capacity of the ECLRT at two (2)-car trainsets at five (5) minute headways. A sensitivity test conducted as part of the DMC study included the effect of the Relief Line North (RLN) project which connects a new subway line to the ECLRT. The addition of this project results in an overall increase to ECLRT ridership.
Given these potential constraints on ECLRT capacity, north-south transit priority improvements would be beneficial additions to the transit network to provide additional mobility choice.
asher__jo
Active Member
I think it was the right decision. The area and the area where a extension would travel will likely always be surrounded by industrial or single family homes off the main Street. Regardless of what people want to say, elevated rail does not create a very walkable urban environment.
44 North
Senior Member
Ok neat. But not doom and gloom. Eventually transitioning to 2.5-3min is relatively easy to do, still using the 2-car setup. And effectively part of the plan for the LRT lines.
afransen
Senior Member
As long as its underground section? I thought such low headways were going to be a problem with traffic signals on above ground portion, leading to bunching.
MrGoose
Active Member
Lol, Eglinton should have been a subway from Kennedy to the Airport. Toronto Rockets and everything.
The moment you build it, you rezone the entirety of Eglinton for high density.
afransen
Senior Member
And, frankly, an express line (tunneled or not).
mdu
Active Member
My point was not that we should be doom-and-gloom about the redevelopment of the area, but pointing out that we'll have the NYCC pattern of suburbia one block behind the glass/concrete streetwall.
Richard White
Senior Member
I agree but the cost would have be astronomical. Hundreds of billions of dollars is the likely cost for a subway from Kennedy to the Airport and even for Doug and Rob Ford it would have been political suicide.
They chose the current design because of cost. "Subways! Subways! Subways!" Can only get you so far otherwise we would have alot more subways being built.
Northern Light
Superstar
I don't wish to seem at all confrontational; I do, however, wish to suggest that your position is one I find problematic.
The area being redeveloped is ~600M wide x 2km long.
I'm not sure how much greater an area could be claimed in one move.
Worth adding, the area is then buffered by a hydro corridor to the north; and industry, not SFH to the south; excepting the VP to Warden block south of Eglinton Square, which does remain SFH.
Also, should one continue east beyond Birchmount, or north on Victoria Park, the majority of buildings are mid-rise apartments, not SFH.
For reference, North York City Centre varies in width between less than 300M wide, and about 450M at peak.
Lastly, I would note, that NYCC remains incomplete; but already growing beyond its original confines with intensification on Sheppard and Finch and further north on Yonge.