Northern Light
Superstar
Excellent thread and commentary PE!
Any insight on the Green P garage. In respect of the fact Cressy had suggested he would push to have it entirely under 260 instead of the Park.
260 Adelaide West | 196.8m | 61s | CentreCourt | Sweeny &Co
- Thread starter innsertnamehere
- Start date
Excellent thread and commentary PE!
Any insight on the Green P garage. In respect of the fact Cressy had suggested he would push to have it entirely under 260 instead of the Park.
ProjectEnd
Superstar
As currently envisioned, there are no Green P space under 260. They are currently targeting a 0.11 ratio which would only cover residents:
Northern Light
Superstar
That needs to be considered, I think.
Like you, I could do w/o the Green P component entirely; but to the extent it makes the numbers work, I'd prefer to see the spaces under 260 and/or under the Tridel proposal on John; or possibly making use of the Nelson St. ROW for some of that, depending on utility depth.
innsertnamehere
Superstar
I see no reason why the Green P can't be shifted to 260 with the underground running down 4 or 5 levels instead.
I suspect that will end up happening and they are negotiating. Or at least I hope they are!
I suspect that will end up happening and they are negotiating. Or at least I hope they are!
ProjectEnd
Superstar
I'm fine with it not being constructed at all, but remember, P4 or P5 is *vastly* more expensive than P2 or P3 elsewhere. The City will likely see that as a cost they don't want to bear, even if the city-building outcome is clearly better.
ADRM
Senior Member
I know I'm going to be mostly preaching to the choir here, but just to say it, the Green P in any form is a massive waste of time, land, and money. If it's under the park, it probably costs $20-30M, plus forever ongoing operating and maintenance repairs, along with a torn-up park every few decades and the cost and disruption associated with that. If it's within 260, then unless you're granting extra height, it's coming at the expense of new housing.
It's insane for the City to support either outcome in today's climate, especially for 144 parking spots steps from two streetcar lines and a short walk from two subway stations (and a TOD walk to a third), in one of the densest neighbourhoods in the country. It's even within a TOD radius of Union Station itself, FFS!
Shameful status quo-ism.
It's insane for the City to support either outcome in today's climate, especially for 144 parking spots steps from two streetcar lines and a short walk from two subway stations (and a TOD walk to a third), in one of the densest neighbourhoods in the country. It's even within a TOD radius of Union Station itself, FFS!
Shameful status quo-ism.
innsertnamehere
Superstar
Green P is generally profitable (and these spaces being in such an expensive parking area will most certainly make the city money), but I agree that they shouldn't be tossing them under public parks.
If Green P wants to pay to buy some spaces under a new development, all the power to them. As long as it isn't being done with subsidy from the city. And Green P has done exactly that with other sites before, paying enough for the developer to make money off building the additional parking and Green P operating the garage profitably. And because the garage is underground, it doesn't remove space for more housing.
If Green P wants to pay to buy some spaces under a new development, all the power to them. As long as it isn't being done with subsidy from the city. And Green P has done exactly that with other sites before, paying enough for the developer to make money off building the additional parking and Green P operating the garage profitably. And because the garage is underground, it doesn't remove space for more housing.
WislaHD
Senior Member
Did we get a confirmation for the new affordable unit total? I didn't see it in the planning rationale.
smably
Senior Member
OK, maybe a stupid question, but why spend $100m to purchase 229 Richmond to turn it into a park and then turn around and develop the city-owned site at 260 Adelaide? Why not put the park on Adelaide and let a developer pick up the site on Richmond? Is there more potential density on Adelaide because it's farther from the Queen West HCD? I'm sure there's a good reason for all the real estate gymnastics, so apologies if it was already explained in this thread and I missed it.
jackattack
Active Member
A few massing models to show impact on skyline (260 Adelaide in BLUE):
Looking southwest from above University Ave:
Looking south from Baldwin Village:
Birdseye showing Entertainment District (southwest):
Looking south towards the harbour:
Looking northeast from above Entertainment District:
From University Avenue:
Aerial view of the 'superblock' (between King/John/Simcoe/Adelaide streets):
Skyline from above Kensington market:
Looking southwest from above University Ave:
Looking south from Baldwin Village:
Birdseye showing Entertainment District (southwest):
Looking south towards the harbour:
Looking northeast from above Entertainment District:
From University Avenue:
Aerial view of the 'superblock' (between King/John/Simcoe/Adelaide streets):
Skyline from above Kensington market:
Last edited:
tstormers
Active Member
Amazing how tiny it looks in some of those images with the proposed ones in red.
Yes, if it were a block closer to Queen, it would need to be shorter, and density would be lost.
42
Northern Light
Superstar
Seeing as I can't find the 229 Richmond thread at the moment.............maybe we can start 'pinning' parks projects on the map................
But I digress......
Update here on the park at 229.
Its in the budget.
First year is this year, followed by 2023 and 2024.
Seems like an optimistic timeline....
Budget is millions so 10M total.
p.12
But I digress......
Update here on the park at 229.
Its in the budget.
First year is this year, followed by 2023 and 2024.
Seems like an optimistic timeline....
Budget is millions so 10M total.
p.12
HousingNowTO
Senior Member
Public-Consultation meeting next week - Mon. Mar 7, 2022 - 7:00 p.m. – 8:30 p.m.
