Toronto Litho. | 36.88m | 8s | RioCan Living | Turner Fleischer

[smably]

CRU = Commercial Retail Unit, so yes.

 

[ADRM]

A few pics from tonight's consultation incoming when the photo uploaded starts working for me again. I hadn't appreciated that Sobeys actually owns the site. A few details:

- The Sobey's will be on the second floor, with only stairs and escalators fronting at grade.
- There will be a small, 15-minute surface parking lot on the northwest corner of the site (but it'll be covered by the rest of the building) for Sobeys customers. Longer-term Sobeys parking will be accessed a level below grade via a ramp accessed via the main vehicular entry point.
- The site includes the existing gas station on the western edge, which will become an 85x85-ft public parkette.
- There are no additional retail tenants lined up, and they've got a bunch of knockout walls in the plan if they can line up a number of smaller tenants.

 

[ponyboy]

thanks for the information. That is my go-to gas station -- fewer and fewer gas stations in the "core", but perhaps developers are anticipating electric cars ruling the day soon.

Was there any discussion on whether streets like Shaw and Ossington would get any widening, improvements, traffic calming measures given additional cars in the area?

Also, Sobeys was in the news yesterday announcing a big corporate reorganization to save 6 billion a year. I wonder if that might affect this project in any way. I've shopped at that store since it was IGA 15 years ago, and it has never been that busy for a downtown grocery store, although new condos in the area will help generate demand.

 

[interchange42]

Not a chance that Shaw or Ossington would be widened.

42

 

[ADRM]

thanks for the information. That is my go-to gas station -- fewer and fewer gas stations in the "core", but perhaps developers are anticipating electric cars ruling the day soon.

Was there any discussion on whether streets like Shaw and Ossington would get any widening, improvements, traffic calming measures given additional cars in the area?

Also, Sobeys was in the news yesterday announcing a big corporate reorganization to save 6 billion a year. I wonder if that might affect this project in any way. I've shopped at that store since it was IGA 15 years ago, and it has never been that busy for a downtown grocery store, although new condos in the area will help generate demand.

Widening is the polar opposite direction that anyone would want to head in here, and it is certainly not being considered, though traffic was a huge concern expressed by meeting attendees. These four developments are a sterling example of how horrible the city's minimum parking standards are - we're gonna get 1,129 vehicular parking spaces across 875 units and, maddeningly, the city for some ungodly reason actually requested that at least one of the developers increase the amount of vehicular parking than they had originally submitted for. Makes my blood boil.

There's significant concern that the side streets will bear the brunt of the added traffic these developments will bring (along with those in the future - Layton mentioned there have been preliminary discussions about the Loblaw site just east of here, which is the first I'd heard), and the short answer is that the only thing that's going to bring any additional traffic calming measures to those streets is a citizen-led petition with Layton's support (which for his part he committed to if that support is organized).

A potential option for Shaw, for instance, would be to flip the direction of the one-way so that it runs north between Bloor and Dupont (it currently runs one-way south).

As part of the Dupont corridor study, Transportation has done a lot of analysis and planning with regard to traffic flow and congestion on Dupont itself, and they're assessing a pretty wide range of options (everything from the more vanilla, like changing signal timing from Ossington to Davenport to the more significant, like removing a lane of traffic, bringing it down to three lanes, and introducing new left turn lanes, a strategy which has shown significant reductions in congestion in other instances).

Sobeys owns the entire site and sees this store as an opportunity to move towards a more urban store typology, similar to what Loblaws did with their Maple Leaf Gardens store. It'll be around 40,000 square feet (the Loblaws down the street is about 65,000 square feet by way of comparison), will be entirely on the second floor, and is expected to be frequented much more so by some of the hundreds of new residents living directly on top of it (who will of course thus not be driving to it)

*Also, for a mod, I realized whilst typing this that all discussion of Sobeys should be in the 840 thread rather than the 740 thread... @interchange42. Much of the discussion here is germane to all four developments along the stretch, but obviously the Sobeys is going in 840.*

 

[salsa]

Widening is the polar opposite direction that anyone would want to head in here, and it is certainly not being considered, though traffic was a huge concern expressed by meeting attendees. These four developments are a sterling example of how horrible the city's minimum parking standards are - we're gonna get 1,129 vehicular parking spaces across 875 units and, maddeningly, the city for some ungodly reason actually requested that at least one of the developers increase the amount of vehicular parking than they had originally submitted for. Makes my blood boil.

Why doesn't the city either reform or get rid of these minimum parking requirements?

 

[interchange42]

*Also, for a mod, I realized whilst typing this that all discussion of Sobeys should be in the 840 thread rather than the 740 thread... @interchange42. Much of the discussion here is germane to all four developments along the stretch, but obviously the Sobeys is going in 840.*

Well, let's end the Sobey's talk in this thread as of now, but I'm not sure this amount needs to be moved.

Why doesn't the city either reform or get rid of these minimum parking requirements?

They're certainly allowing exemptions here and there, as long as the building is near a subway station or generally in the downtown, but they seem reluctant to do that along mere bus routes. They should be doing it, however.

My biggest hope is that with all of the development on this stretch, the Dupont/Annette bus frequency will be increased significantly.

42

 

[TrickyRicky]

I feel that minimum parking requirements should be flexible based on the case; however, I fail to see how providing adequate parking isn't an important, even socially progressive decision. A city where parking is not available is a city with a reduced standard of living.

 

[ADRM]

I feel that minimum parking requirements should be flexible based on the case; however, I fail to see how providing adequate parking isn't an important, even socially progressive decision. A city where parking is not available is a city with a reduced standard of living.

That is an entirely baseless and frankly laughable assertion.

 

[ponyboy]

Widening is the polar opposite direction that anyone would want to head in here, and it is certainly not being considered, though traffic was a huge concern expressed by meeting attendees. These four developments are a sterling example of how horrible the city's minimum parking standards are - we're gonna get 1,129 vehicular parking spaces across 875 units and, maddeningly, the city for some ungodly reason actually requested that at least one of the developers increase the amount of vehicular parking than they had originally submitted for. Makes my blood boil.

There's significant concern that the side streets will bear the brunt of the added traffic these developments will bring (along with those in the future - Layton mentioned there have been preliminary discussions about the Loblaw site just east of here, which is the first I'd heard), and the short answer is that the only thing that's going to bring any additional traffic calming measures to those streets is a citizen-led petition with Layton's support (which for his part he committed to if that support is organized).

A potential option for Shaw, for instance, would be to flip the direction of the one-way so that it runs north between Bloor and Dupont (it currently runs one-way south).

As part of the Dupont corridor study, Transportation has done a lot of analysis and planning with regard to traffic flow and congestion on Dupont itself, and they're assessing a pretty wide range of options (everything from the more vanilla, like changing signal timing from Ossington to Davenport to the more significant, like removing a lane of traffic, bringing it down to three lanes, and introducing new left turn lanes, a strategy which has shown significant reductions in congestion in other instances).

Sobeys owns the entire site and sees this store as an opportunity to move towards a more urban store typology, similar to what Loblaws did with their Maple Leaf Gardens store. It'll be around 40,000 square feet (the Loblaws down the street is about 65,000 square feet by way of comparison), will be entirely on the second floor, and is expected to be frequented much more so by some of the hundreds of new residents living directly on top of it (who will of course thus not be driving to it)

*Also, for a mod, I realized whilst typing this that all discussion of Sobeys should be in the 840 thread rather than the 740 thread... @interchange42. Much of the discussion here is germane to all four developments along the stretch, but obviously the Sobeys is going in 840.*

I'm glad no one is talking about widening. I own property on Shaw between Dupont and Davenport, and would be interested in participating in upcoming meetings or advocacy. I hope they don't change the direction of Shaw as it is a very useful street to get south. One of the things I hate about the Annex and Seaton Village is changing the direction of the streets every block. I understand the logic, but it unnecessarily sends too much traffic to the main roads in my view. I like having lots of two-way street connectivity and options, but with appropriate traffic calming.

 

[junctionist]

I feel that minimum parking requirements should be flexible based on the case; however, I fail to see how providing adequate parking isn't an important, even socially progressive decision. A city where parking is not available is a city with a reduced standard of living.

I agree. There are plenty of commutes where driving is the fastest option and plenty of situations in which driving is the most practical option. Without parking, many residents would not be able to enjoy this superior option at all. The wealthier residents of the building might rent driveways in the surrounding neighbourhood. They'd be the only ones to enjoy this transportation advantage that most residents could have.

 

[interchange42]

We are adding lots of new housing, most of it with parking, but we are not adding new road space. To still think that we can continue to encourage driving to all of the new residences (by providing copious parking spaces) and have the road system continue to function reasonably is to be living in a fantasy. Driving will become unworkable for everyone if we continue to stuff ever more cars onto the same roads. Congested roads will bring everyone's quality of life down. Drivers will get more out of shape, more stressed, will delay those on surface transit, will add to air pollution.

The solution is car share parking to promote membership and not ownership, (and so using a personal vehicle less often), more transit rides, more cycling, more walking. Want to live in a new building but still want a car? We should be telling people to try Burlington if that's the case. Toronto simply doesn't have the road space to continue to build enough parking space to suit antiquated notions of what's "adequate".

42

 

[junctionist]

I agree. We want to discourage driving because the inevitable traffic congestion means inefficient transportation, pollution, and reduced quality of life overall in the city. It's the logical position to take. But it's silly to think people are going to somehow forget about the pleasures of a road trip, the convenience of getting groceries with a car from their favourite stores, and the freedom and prosperity of finding employment anywhere in the region and not just downtown or near transit. Typically, some condo parking space should be provided, though not at a level that encourages residents to drive as their main form of transportation.

 

[innsertnamehere]

I would say that close to the majority of housing built in Toronto today is actually parking free. Most condos are below 1/3 parking ratios, even in the burbs they are well below 1/1.

 

[PMT]

Latest renderings from the recent Dupont Corridor Development Open House (source):