The database has been updated to reflect the settlement proposal. We consider this 32-storeys given the mezzanine level below level 2.
Front elevation:
Front elevation:
Toronto 1196 Yonge | 114m | 32s | Woodcliffe | KPMB
- Thread starter AlbertC
- Start date
AlexBozikovic
Active Member
Half of the ground floor of this building will be devoted to a truck turnaround. Just look how that constrains the retail. A conversation about this policy is overdue…
Northern Light
Superstar
Alex has a good point here; but I would begin by observing that the parking elevators have just as big an impact on poor groundfloor layout here.
****
That said, there two or three discrete issues around Type G requirements.
1) Do we impose them where they genuinely are not needed? (the answer is definitely yes, but where to draw the line is an interesting question)
2) On larger sites can we, as-of-right, push this function to P1 / one level below grade to significantly reduce the adverse impact on the at-grade experience.
3) Can we come up with less footprint intensive options than the typical Type G space that fulfill the same need?
*****
Note here that the nominal purpose of these spaces is:
1) To provide for garbage pick-up by City-sized (long) trucks and to have those trucks not obstruct traffic on an abutting street while doing their thing.
2) To similarly accommodate move-ins/outs without having a moving truck blocking an adjacent street for an extended period; these spaces may also serve retail-loading.
*****
The functional need for this things to be done off-street will vary, (is a rear-lane available, does the building front a minor street? etc etc.)
There is an argument to be made that these spaces are imposed by way of unit count in the City of Toronto, we could debate whether the unit count threshold is too low (it is); but also whether this sufficient discretion for planning to consider
the 'real world' in which a building is situated in terms of whether a full off-street space is required.
*****
The other thing though......... we've sized these spaces based on large garbage trucks and large moving trucks etc. We could choose to size them based on smaller ones.
All of which is to say, the policy is (over) due for an open and public review.
Kenojuak
Active Member
Bad turning diagram from the transportation consultant. RJ Burnside or BA Group would tighten up this entire vehicular area. There's also a lot of wasted space in the lobby and back of house spaces that could be much improved. Only the developer can push the consultants to do better on things like this. Maybe this was rushed for a settlement and will be refined in actual design. One can hope.
innsertnamehere
Superstar
or... *gasp* we let trucks back onto low traffic streets. Which honestly, most do already anyway as the turnaround spaces provided within developments are often very tight.
Many other municipalities, and indeed most of the world, let this happen. It's not the end of the world.
Northern Light
Superstar
I'm not opposed to this.........
BUT
A moving truck is often parked for several hours. In a building with several hundred units, moves will be a near monthly experience....
I completely get that the current regime is overkill. No argument at all.
But I'm my usual pragmatic self in wondering where a healthy balance exists between spiking the requirement entirely vs the status quo.
I also happen to favour smaller truck sizes.........not just for waste either............but that's largely outside of the City's jurisdiction (non-waste).
innsertnamehere
Superstar
My solution would probably be to increase the number of units before a Type G is triggered - likely to 50-60 units. If you want, you can require a Type C below that (moving van), which are much smaller and easier to accommodate. I will admit that garbage pickup will have to be figured out - perhaps allow it through "compact sized" private pickup vehicles instead of the full-size loaders which need the Type G size. something like this:
That, and allow loading vehicles to back onto local or even collector streets.
Those two differences would massively shift the amount of space required for a loading space in a development. Most of the bloat comes from the turnaround space itself, not the requirement for a space.
That, and allow loading vehicles to back onto local or even collector streets.
Those two differences would massively shift the amount of space required for a loading space in a development. Most of the bloat comes from the turnaround space itself, not the requirement for a space.
Northern Light
Superstar
Toronto has that now (de facto); (Waste Management is generally waiving the requirement below 60 units, that's why you heard that number a lot at the EHON deputations); but it is still a nominal requirement. (waiver approved by Council as part of ZBA as opposed to as-of-right).
This alone would not have changed the outcome here.
Agreed.
^^ This I think is a big one. The idea that yes a builder must be able to accomodate the parked truck entirely on property, but does not need to accommodate a full turnaround movement, particularly if backing out into a minor, but adequately wide street.
Exactly.
******
So I think a big focus ought to be that the turnaround not be required except where conditions merit. (ie. the loading is off of a major street, or a street whose angle/width etc. would make backing out uniquely challenging.)
ProjectEnd
Superstar
Planning is generally cucked to Transportation Services and Solid Waste Management. Even though Planning technically are the holders of the keys, too many of them find pushing back on other departments' insanity anathema to 'collegial professionalism'. It sucks and leads to shitty buildings and a worse City as a result.
artyboy123
Senior Member
The choice of words in here is just pure entertainment!
Tuscani01
Senior Member
If questions about servicing come up at community council and no one from Solid Waste or Transportation supports the proposal, the file is in for a rough ride. No answers = no approval.
Also, some of their items can be added to the SPA. If the developer doesn’t resolve them, no SPA.
So yes planning can choose to ignore them, but at the end of the day those departments can still hold things up. Better to lobby those departments to change their rules vs. asking for the rules to be ignored.