Toronto Galleria On The Park | 143.86m | 42s | Almadev | Hariri Pontarini

If Dupont were to be straightened, the old alignment could be downgraded to local street status and be named "Old Dupont Street" or it could bring back the former name of the street before Dupont absorbed it ("Van Horne Avenue" or given that Van Horne has already been taken, perhaps "Royce Avenue" instead?).

See here:

1902Sankey.G_3524_T61_1902_fullf.jpg
 
Why do so many people want the street straightened? What is the benefit in doing so? I welcome deviations from the monotonous street grid, such as this. If the street were to be straightened here, there would be less room for development to take place without going taller or cutting into the park space.
 
Armour said:
Why do so many people want the street straightened? What is the benefit in doing so? I welcome deviations from the monotonous street grid, such as this. If the street were to be straightened here, there would be less room for development to take place without going taller or cutting into the park space.
Click to expand...

The north side could be redeveloped then. Otherwise, it would remain as it is now. If they don't buy the little piece of land, then it would become a boulevard between the existing sidewalk and the roadway, maybe even a bicycle path.
 
If they did own the properties on the north side of Dupont, I imagine the developers would be proposing to straighten Dupont. A straighter street is more efficient land-use-wise, and City Planning would be pushing for it as straight streets are less dangerous as sightlines are not compromised by curves. The speed of the traffic on the street can be controlled through its design, like with lanes that are not overly wide, and with a traffic light midway through the block which I imagine that they'll be adding.

That said, curved or straightened, either should be fine: it's not a make-or-break part of getting a good redevelopment.

42
 
Johnny Au said:
If Dupont were to be straightened, the old alignment could be downgraded to local street status and be named "Old Dupont Street" or it could bring back the former name of the street before Dupont absorbed it ("Van Horne Avenue" or given that Van Horne has already been taken, perhaps "Royce Avenue" instead?).
Click to expand...

Would this not give us two parallel roads effectively next to one another?
 
W. K. Lis said:
The north side could be redeveloped then. Otherwise, it would remain as it is now. If they don't buy the little piece of land, then it would become a boulevard between the existing sidewalk and the roadway, maybe even a bicycle path.
Click to expand...

That would be a darn wide boulevard, and given the number of existing small parcels on the north side of Dupont, a boulevard traversed by a multitude of driveways. I can't see any scenario where this doesn't cost the City a lot of $ for comparatively small return. The only solution would be for the developer to assemble the properties on the north side, the value of all of which will have already increased significantly due to the proposed redevelopment.
 
Unless they speak publicly about it, we won't know for certain whether or not the developers have approached the landowners on the north side of Dupont… but there is reason to speculate that those landowners want too much for it: if a huge development were going up across the street from you, and you had a weirdly narrow property that backed on a rail line, wouldn't you recognize that selling to that developer was your best chance for making a good price on your land? If you were smart, you would, and if you weren't too smart for your own good, you wouldn't overprice it either.

There are always those who would rather just keep doing what they are doing, mind you, no matter what the price.

42
 
Access road or not, would that still not give us two parallel roads effectively next to one another? What would that accomplish, other than a lot of extra asphalt? Why would we need a separate access road merely to access the properties along the northern perimeter?
 
Last edited:
If they straighten Dupont, the properties on the north side would have access to more real estate for their businesses. Either as parking lots (cheapest) or to extend the buildings southward or build new larger buildings entirely (most expensive).
 
W. K. Lis said:
If they straighten Dupont, the properties on the north side would have access to more real estate for their businesses. Either as parking lots (cheapest) or to extend the buildings southward or build new larger buildings entirely (most expensive).
Click to expand...

Yes, but the City can't force those owners to buy the additional property, and where the owners don't purchase the land, the City also can't deny those owners vehicular access to the realigned access unless the City is willing to pay through the nose in injurious affection claims. Some of those owners would be delighted to acquire the additional property, assuming they think it's the right price (not a given), others would not/could not. At the end of the day, given the proximity of the rail corridor, it's not enough additional land to make any of these properties developable for residential uses, which is where the real value of the additional land would lay, and I'm not even entirely sure they'd get a sufficient floor plate to make office uses practical, beyond medical, realtor and similar low-rent users. Even in the unlikely event that all of the owners did acquire the adjacent parcels where Dupont used to be, there would still be a mess of driveways connecting the existing buildings to the new Dupont alignment, until such time as the owners decided to redevelop their properties (which given the employment designation and zoning, and proximity of the rail corridor, likely won't be any time soon for most of those lots). For lands adjacent to an area being comprehensively planned and revitalized, that seems like a terrible land use planning result given how much effort would be required to get to that result.

As mentioned above, the only scenario where a realignment of Dupont is practical is if the Galleria owners assembled and acquired all of the northern parcels - a challenging task. Keep in mind that the required separation distance between the rail corridor and where residential would be permitted currently falls entirely on the northern parcels and the current Dupont right-of-way. Freed/ELAD would go to the trouble, delay and expense of assembling all those lots, only to find themselves owner of lands that are within that separation distance. I can't imagine that Freed/ELAD would see a strong business case for the assembly. The City, I suppose, could use its expropriation powers to acquire the northern parcels, with the intent of selling them to the Galleria owners, but I simply doubt the owners want those parcels.

And this is all for a realignment that doesn't seem to be particularly required. There was the suggestion above that straightening the street would, in theory, make it safer, but is this stretch of Dupont subject to a lot of collisions today?
 
I always thought that less-straight streets were considered safer because they require greater attention from drivers?
 
If Dupont is straightened, without much of anything done to the buildings on the north side, the north side property owners would likely see their property taxes go up anyways because they will have access to a driveway where their customers could park on. Some will protest the extra expense, while others will see the addition space for customers.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top