Marlee/Glencairn Transformation

[Cambry Ardship]

The city is planning a transformation of the Marlee-Glencairn area. With the provincial MTSAs setting a minimum density of 200 people and jobs per hectare, the city is planning for the predominantly low-rise neighbourhoods surrounding Glencairn up to Lawrence to transform into midrise neighbourhoods along with higher development on Marlee, with populations quadrupling to around 27,000 people in the area aground Glencairn Station, and approximately 900 jobs created in new commercial areas.

Information from the city is available at https://www.toronto.ca/city-governm...anning-studies-initiatives/growing-glencairn/. The map below shows the area being reviewed.

This roughly shows the study area around Glencairn station, with a 1970s-era apartment neighbourhood on Marlee, and predominantly single family home neighbourhoods surrounding the station. Towards the north there are small multiplexes, and past Lawrence a revitalisation and expansion of the public housing in the area.

The city is also going to plan for expanding parkland, building new active transportation infrastructure and routes throughout the Dufferin/Bathurst/Eglinton/Lawrence block. There is potential for a new south entrance to the Lawrence West station. Marlee is expected to see a lot more commercial and retail activity along its length. The population growth is also going to mean major public infrastructure investments in water and sewers in the area.

Major questions are whether development and density should be focused along the Marlee corridor, more similar to traditional Toronto development patterns, or be spread out around the node of Glencairn station, creating a whole new midrise district north of Viewmount, east of the Allen all the way to Bathurst.

The city is going to hold public meetings next week, on December 9, to collect feedback on the 2 main options, and launch a survey to the public following.

 

[TwoWheelPoli]

The city is planning a transformation of the Marlee-Glencairn area. With the provincial MTSAs setting a minimum density of 200 people and jobs per hectare, the city is planning for the predominantly low-rise neighbourhoods surrounding Glencairn up to Lawrence to transform into midrise neighbourhoods along with higher development on Marlee, with populations quadrupling to around 27,000 people in the area aground Glencairn Station, and approximately 900 jobs created in new commercial areas.

Information from the city is available at https://www.toronto.ca/city-governm...anning-studies-initiatives/growing-glencairn/. The map below shows the area being reviewed.

View attachment 700468

This roughly shows the study area around Glencairn station, with a 1970s-era apartment neighbourhood on Marlee, and predominantly single family home neighbourhoods surrounding the station. Towards the north there are small multiplexes, and past Lawrence a revitalisation and expansion of the public housing in the area.

View attachment 700472

The city is also going to plan for expanding parkland, building new active transportation infrastructure and routes throughout the Dufferin/Bathurst/Eglinton/Lawrence block. There is potential for a new south entrance to the Lawrence West station. Marlee is expected to see a lot more commercial and retail activity along its length. The population growth is also going to mean major public infrastructure investments in water and sewers in the area.

Major questions are whether development and density should be focused along the Marlee corridor, more similar to traditional Toronto development patterns, or be spread out around the node of Glencairn station, creating a whole new midrise district north of Viewmount, east of the Allen all the way to Bathurst.

The city is going to hold public meetings next week, on December 9, to collect feedback on the 2 main options, and launch a survey to the public following.

I heard this was one of the reasons why the Beltline Gap Connections project was put on hold.

 

[Cambry Ardship]

I heard this was one of the reasons why the Beltline Gap Connections project was put on hold.

I heard that too. I think it's silly given that both the options being developed include both the Beltline Gap Connection being built as well as an improved cycle corridor along Marlee. But I think that's coming down to the desire of Councillor Colle to delay and reduce the scope of any development in the area. So cyclists and pedestrians in the area are the sacrificial goat to forestall the inevitable changes.

 

[Cambry Ardship]

The two roundtables were today. I was at the first one, which was extremely well attended with about 70 people. There were several unfortunate interruptions with attendees yelling at the presenters but once the presentation and Q&A portion was over there was a good breakout session with staff, and it seemed like there were some good discussions and feedback left, from all points of view

The evening session, as I understand it, was much worse. Again, a packed house, and quite a few people interrupting, yelling at the presenters, making long speeches. Mike Colle apparently gave a very long, 30+ minute rambling speech with the goal of trying to get residents to stop development in the area by putting pressure on the province. I hope the breakouts were better because that sounds very painful.

But! Let me share some materials from the meeting. The purpose is for the City to plan development around the area to meet or exceed the MTSA minimum density requirements and ensure that current and future residents have a good place to live. The two main options that the City wanted feedback on are Option 1, a corridor-based plan centred around Marlee and Lawrence, and Option 2, a zone-based plan centred around Glencairn Station with significant mid-rise development to the north and east of the station. Both plans have significant focus on enabling walking and cycling, providing better parks, and having Marlee be a complete street with significant retail and commercial activity, like Queen.

Option 1: Land Use and Built Form

Option 2: Land Use and Built Form

Both plans include building up Marlee as a Primary Street, and having pedestrian and cycling improvements along... wait for it... Lawrence! But Option 2 sensibly would make Glencairn a second Primary Street and include Shermount as an additional north/south secondary corridor east of the Allen. Marlee would have pedestrian improvements and tree plantings.

Option 1: Public Realm

Option 2: Public Realm

I was very impressed by their vision for cycling and active transportation. Both options have the Beltline Gap Connection project completed and bike path improvements up to Lawrence, which makes Colle's behaviour this summer all the more frustrating. But the City envisions a connected network of bike paths throughout the area to support cycling and active transportation and provide real alternatives to private cars. There is a focus on expanding the Allen Greenway path from Eglinton to Lawrence that is not unwelcome, but not going to be as much a gamechanger as I think staff were hoping. This is because even with noise barriers, walking along the side of the Allen is unpleasant and I think most people, myself included would rather take improved pedestrian and bike focused streets.

Option 1: Mobility

Option 2: Mobility

Option 2, in particular, really impressed me as a progressive vision for the area, that supports dense neighbourhoods, active transportation, and would make this area more than an afterthought for the city. Change is coming to this neighbourhood no matter how some people complain about it and it's really sad that so many would throw a childish temper tantrum than engage with a very impressive plan from the City that truly supports and lifts up this community.

 

[UntitledCyclist]

The two roundtables were today. I was at the first one, which was extremely well attended with about 70 people. There were several unfortunate interruptions with attendees yelling at the presenters but once the presentation and Q&A portion was over there was a good breakout session with staff, and it seemed like there were some good discussions and feedback left, from all points of view

The evening session, as I understand it, was much worse. Again, a packed house, and quite a few people interrupting, yelling at the presenters, making long speeches. Mike Colle apparently gave a very long, 30+ minute rambling speech with the goal of trying to get residents to stop development in the area by putting pressure on the province. I hope the breakouts were better because that sounds very painful.

But! Let me share some materials from the meeting. The purpose is for the City to plan development around the area to meet or exceed the MTSA minimum density requirements and ensure that current and future residents have a good place to live. The two main options that the City wanted feedback on are Option 1, a corridor-based plan centred around Marlee and Lawrence, and Option 2, a zone-based plan centred around Glencairn Station with significant mid-rise development to the north and east of the station. Both plans have significant focus on enabling walking and cycling, providing better parks, and having Marlee be a complete street with significant retail and commercial activity, like Queen.

Option 1: Land Use and Built Form
View attachment 701815

Option 2: Land Use and Built Form
View attachment 701816

Both plans include building up Marlee as a Primary Street, and having pedestrian and cycling improvements along... wait for it... Lawrence! But Option 2 sensibly would make Glencairn a second Primary Street and include Shermount as an additional north/south secondary corridor east of the Allen. Marlee would have pedestrian improvements and tree plantings.

Option 1: Public Realm
View attachment 701817

Option 2: Public Realm
View attachment 701818

I was very impressed by their vision for cycling and active transportation. Both options have the Beltline Gap Connection project completed and bike path improvements up to Lawrence, which makes Colle's behaviour this summer all the more frustrating. But the City envisions a connected network of bike paths throughout the area to support cycling and active transportation and provide real alternatives to private cars. There is a focus on expanding the Allen Greenway path from Eglinton to Lawrence that is not unwelcome, but not going to be as much a gamechanger as I think staff were hoping. This is because even with noise barriers, walking along the side of the Allen is unpleasant and I think most people, myself included would rather take improved pedestrian and bike focused streets.

Option 1: Mobility
View attachment 701820

Option 2: Mobility
View attachment 701821

Option 2, in particular, really impressed me as a progressive vision for the area, that supports dense neighbourhoods, active transportation, and would make this area more than an afterthought for the city. Change is coming to this neighbourhood no matter how some people complain about it and it's really sad that so many would throw a childish temper tantrum than engage with a very impressive plan from the City that truly supports and lifts up this community.

Thanks for this thoughtful recap. I was also at the first presentation this afternoon, and as someone who doesn't really dwell in this space I found it so disheartening – mostly from the side of the audience.

The slideshow by the well-meaning presenter was almost useless for readability in a cramped room of Boomers (no slight, just factual). The slides were too finely-detailed for a powerpoint in a big room, but also rushed over. I happened to be seated next to a screen, but I still could not follow the pace of the presentation. And I honestly did not understand the thrust of the two options shown above, which framed the entire presentation. This post helped, but in the room I feel few people would have understood – if they even cared to.

The crowd included 4-5 loud and insistent interrupters, who could not wait for the Q&A and repeatedly brigaded the poor speaker with angry accusations that had little to do with the topic. More seasoned city staff would come to the rescue to reply (generously I thought) before urging them to let the presenter finish.

At one point a man on the side audibly called the O2 public engagement specialist a "loser" for calling out the small group who were dominating the meeting. I found myself wondering when someone would be removed, or police called and the whole event sent off the rails. It's hard to imagine the evening was even worse.

Unsurprisingly, by the Q&A there wasn't much time for questions (as so much had been wasted dealing with the shouters) but that is where some actually thoughtful and informed questions came about.

I realize I am focusing on the crowd, rather than the proposals, but the anger in the room was so distracting. Especially coming from people who may not even be around to see most of the changes under discussion. They are talking about a 30-35 year timeline for the kind of zoning and building changes being proposed. Everyone has a right to speak up, but I had trouble understanding the rage of these residents over 50 who are so mad at the prospect of more high and mid-rises, expanded parks and a few cycling and pedestrian upgrades.

People talk a lot about how Gen Z are socially maladapted from missing key socialization during COVID. I would suggest that the loss of decorum is wider and if anything is more pronounced in older generations. But now I'm ranting. I truly feel for and have much more sympathy for city staff during events like this. What a tough gig.

On the issue of cycling upgrades, I was pleased to hear the planners support the approved Marlee / Beltline connection plan which Colle in his wisdom got council to pause. Unfortunately staff can't override that move. I really hope it comes back to life earlier than the plans in these mockups though.

I agree on the inflated expectations around the Allen Greenway. It could be useful as a straight shot N-S, as especialy if Marlee continues to be a half-baked biking street, as most of the other side street options have multiple dog-legs to connect Eglinton to Lawrence. The current path is just a sidewalk with a giant wall on one side, which makes biking feel precarious and gets annoyed looks from pedestrians. If the whole thing were widened into an MUP and extended from from Eglinton to Lawrence, it would be geat, but I can't see plans that show that per se.

The bike route on Lawrence was news to me as well, though it may have been under consideration in last near-term cycling plan. Sadly it is likely a lost cause in the wake of Bill 60. Lawrence bike lanes will be easily axed unless the city can come up with a creative approach that doesn't take away a traffic lane. Best of luck!

 

[abovegrade]

This would really push the needle in terms of opening up the yellowbelt and showing how urban transformation of suburban neighbourhoods can make our city more walkable, interesting, cozy, lively, exciting etc.
I am so p*ssed off at the residents who rudely interrupted the speakers, I don't think I would have been able to sit there and stay silent. We NEED to fight NIMBYism at all costs.

 

[Northern Light]

Let me also extend my thanks to @Cambry Ardship for his excellent recap.

And also to @UntitledCyclist for sharing his experiences.

A closer look at the parks and public realm slide:

I'm pleased to see a general focus on parks expansion over new parks, and in particular, significantly expanding Wenderly Park, and Viewmount, so that these parks will not only be larger and more functional, but more easily accessible from more directions.

The Wenderly enlargement is more than 2ha/5 acres and will bring it up to a much more usable 5ha/12.5 acres give or take.

I'm less enthused by the two small parks on the west side of Marlee and would prefer these to be in one block at 2x the size. I know why they did it this way, its a way of buffering taller proposals along Marlee from the SFH areas. I get it, but I'd rather do that with built form and rear laneways.

Lets not make useless parks as landscape buffers.

 

[Cambry Ardship]

I'm less enthused by the two small parks on the west side of Marlee and would prefer these to be in one block at 2x the size. I know why they did it this way, its a way of buffering taller proposals along Marlee from the SFH areas. I get it, but I'd rather do that with built form and rear laneways.

The ones to the north and south of Ridelle (marked in the below image)? The City staff said that these were about reusing of existing assets to better benefit the area, in this case, the (disused?) stub of a hydro corridor. I'm sure there's an element of buffering, but the hydro park is only present in Option 2, where the rest of the block westward towards Danesbury will zoned for 6 storey Apartment Neighbourhoods.

 

[Cambry Ardship]

I realize I am focusing on the crowd, rather than the proposals, but the anger in the room was so distracting. Especially coming from people who may not even be around to see most of the changes under discussion. They are talking about a 30-35 year timeline for the kind of zoning and building changes being proposed. Everyone has a right to speak up, but I had trouble understanding the rage of these residents over 50 who are so mad at the prospect of more high and mid-rises, expanded parks and a few cycling and pedestrian upgrades.

The behaviour of some older residents was awful. @UntitledCyclist isn't exaggerating, it was flat out unacceptable to treat anyone like that. The younger people in the session were not the ones being jerks to staff. I think a lot of people were living out real or perceived slights from the city against the area over the past 50 years.

But this plan isn't a slight. It's talking about billions of dollars of public and private money coming into the area over the long term and how changes should benefits current and future residents. Not to be crass, but I don't want to future of the area to be limited by someone who won't be around to deal with the compounding problems that come with keeping an artificially restricted status quo.

 

[Northern Light]

On the subject of mobility, I see my single most critical idea made it in to the plans!

Note the removal of the EB to SB Allen Ramp and the NB Allen to Lawrence ramp! Woot.

Overall, I'm extremely impressed with these plans as they mostly follow what I have long pitched here.

***

On cycle tracks on Lawrence, the plan shows only a near-term lane running from Marlee to Blossomfield.

This is viable under the provincial bill, by removing non-travel lanes: (west side)

You have a centre lane that can be removed where cars aren't even permitted. That's ~3.3M wide, but you also have curb lanes that are in the 3.9M wide range

On the east side:

The bus ebayment can re removed on the north side, the travel lanes and Left turn lane must remain.

Here the ebayment gives you 3M, the two outer curb lanes are ~3.7M and could be reduced to 3.3M easily, affording another .8M for a total of 3.8M available. This is sufficient for a bidirectional cycle track on the north side.

If you want uni-directional tracks, its tight w/o removing the SB right-turn lane at Marlee, which I'm not sure is feasible.

***

Cycle tracks west of Blossomfield or east of Marlee do appear to require lane removals and so would not currently be on the table.,

 

[Cambry Ardship]

The connection from Marlee to Blossomfield is already planned for in the Near Term Cycling Plan. There's some indistinct dotted yellow lines along Lawrence--staff were clear that they were planning inclusion of better cycling along the broader avenue, to Dufferin and Bathurst at least, rather than just facilitating the north/south connection.

Once the city makes better quality images available I'll upload clearer versions.

 

[abovegrade]

Side note, downsview is kind of planning a "cycling highway" of sorts, which I think may connect to the future Yorkdale development. It may be beneficial to think about a future connection to these plans as well.

 

[bearcat]

I hope they can reopen the passage via the Bell property along the Allen north from Ridelle sooner rather than later....

 

[Cambry Ardship]

A-a-a-and a new submission in the area for 8 Benner Street.
(https://www.toronto.ca/city-government/planning-development/application-details/?id=5753435&pid=363336&title=8-12 BENNER AVE & 5 STAYNER AVE)

OPA & Rezoning Application proposes the development of a 37-storey residential building. The building will provide a total of 418 residential units, being a mix of 1-bedroom, 2-bedroom, and 3-bedroom units. A paved access from Stayner Road along the west property line will be provided, leading to 1 level of below-grade parking, providing a total of 17 parking spaces; as well as 494 bicycle parking spaces. The proposed development provides a total GFA of 27,812.40 square metres and a FSI of 15.1. Additionally, the proposed development provides 1,265.10 square metres of indoor amenity space and 653.20 square metres of outdoor amenity space.

Mike Colle can try to stand before the tide yelling "stop!", but this area is going to change. Trying to sabotage and slow down this area study that he asked the city to create is just going to have negative consequences for everyone.

Note that this, and many other applications in the area, are anticipating an active transportation/transit neighbourhood.

Rendering of the new building:

 

[JMR]

Let me also extend my thanks to @Cambry Ardship for his excellent recap.

And also to @UntitledCyclist for sharing his experiences.

A closer look at the parks and public realm slide:

View attachment 701945

I'm pleased to see a general focus on parks expansion over new parks, and in particular, significantly expanding Wenderly Park, and Viewmount, so that these parks will not only be larger and more functional, but more easily accessible from more directions.

The Wenderly enlargement is more than 2ha/5 acres and will bring it up to a much more usable 5ha/12.5 acres give or take.

I'm less enthused by the two small parks on the west side of Marlee and would prefer these to be in one block at 2x the size. I know why they did it this way, its a way of buffering taller proposals along Marlee from the SFH areas. I get it, but I'd rather do that with built form and rear laneways.

Lets not make useless parks as landscape buffers.

When do you anticipate the Wenderly park expansion? I notice the legend has it as a priority..