Toronto Lower Don Lands Redevelopment | ?m | ?s | Waterfront Toronto

Jayomatic said:
Is anyone else feeling a little uneasy about the planning around this future neighbourhood? While it does the best of job recreating the original Don, I wonder if the neighbourhood seems too small to become a vibrant destination.

It's too bad they couldn't be a little more creative with the water flow. After being in Amsterdam for over a week, having water alongside residential streets really creates a beautiful effect.
Click to expand...

Wasn't that the original goal? A Venice-like effect?
 
syn said:
Wasn't that the original goal? A Venice-like effect?
Click to expand...

Not from what I've seen. They are just gonna redirect The Don River, that's about it. I wish they would extend the shipping channels all the way through to the east and put a few north/south ones in too. It would give that whole area a totally unique feel to it and be great for recreation and possible water based transit.
 
Hume: Hockey trumps planning in Toronto

Proposed waterfront sports complex a study in why Toronto will never be a great city.

By Christopher Hume
Urban Issues, Architecture

This is a story about why Toronto is not and never will be a great city. It is a tale of mediocrity told by a cast of characters ranging from our high-profile mayor, David Miller, to a faceless but senior bureaucrat named Richard Butts.

The plot revolves around a proposed sports complex on the Lower Don Lands, yet its significance goes well beyond the waterfront. In its own way, it is an allegory of a city where expediency beats excellence every time.

The story goes back a decade with the formation of Waterfront Toronto. Created by the three levels of government, its mandate was to revitalize the former industrial lands along the shores of Lake Ontario. To that purpose, design competitions were organized and plans drawn up. That process continues, but remaking the waterfront will take 20 or 30 years.

In the meantime, facing pressure from the local sport lobby, especially the girls’ hockey contingent, the city decided the Lower Don Lands would be an ideal location for a four-rink facility and the 440 parking spots that would come with it.

Waterfront planners liked the idea, but worried the scheme would be more appropriate in a suburban setting, not a sustainable, mixed-use urban community on the water’s edge. These reservations were about design, not use. Though these objections were dealt with, the city said no.

“The sports complex doesn’t negatively impact the Lower Don Lands Plan,” Butts, an assistant deputy city manager, insists. “This is a good opportunity to meet the needs of a broad spectrum of people.”

Internationally respected architect/planner, Ken Greenberg, agrees with Butts that the complex represents an opportunity, but not in the form Butts wants. That’s why Greenberg, who was part of the design team, resigned abruptly last month.

As he wrote in his letter resignation, “it appears that this chance to do something innovative and of great quality is being squandered.”

“Effective city building,” Greenberg noted, “means keeping overlapping goals in balance. In this case the value of the opportunity which is being sacrificed is substantial, both in terms of the long term viability and sustainability of this critical part of the Lower Don Lands Plan … including the loss of potential for successful mixed-use redevelopment of valuable waterfront land on a future Light Rail Transit Line….”

Councillor Adam Vaughan goes further: “It’s a slap in the face of efforts to build a beautiful waterfront,” he argues. “It’s a waste of land and a great plan. If this were a Home Depot, the whole city would be up in arms. But because it’s hockey, no one says a word.”

“I know there’s a lot of pressure for more ice capacity,” says Councillor Paula Fletcher, whose ward includes the site, “but it can’t be at the expense of good planning.”

What many Torontonians don’t know, however, is that Toronto’s planning department reports to Butts, whose background is in garbage collection.


“I’m not a planner,” he admits. “I rely on the advice of others. I’ve received advice that the sports complex is compatible with the Lower Don Lands Plan.”

But, says Waterfront Toronto’s vice-president of planning, Christopher Glaisek, “This is not our preferred alternative.”

And where’s the mayor in all this? Miller, the jock who fought hard to get a seat on the board of Waterfront Toronto, refuses to speak publicly about the sports complex. Despite repeated calls to his office, he remains silent.

And so, after 10 years of hard work, the city is right back where it started building big box facilities surrounded by acres of surface parking lot on the waterfront.

“It’s stupid,” says Vaughan. And, one might add, sad.
 
Last edited:
I think Hume might need to cool it a bit. The apparent failure so far to design a facility that's going to be sensitive to the precinct plan is certainly lamentable, and steps should be taken to correct it etc. etc. But this ''never will be a great city'' schtick is hysterical. ''Great cities'' have lots of crappy projects and missed opportunities, and lots of non-great cities have fantastic ones, and so on. I commend CH for drawing attention to this, but wish he weren't so dramatic...
 
allabootmatt said:
I think Hume might need to cool it a bit. The apparent failure so far to design a facility that's going to be sensitive to the precinct plan is certainly lamentable, and steps should be taken to correct it etc. etc. But this ''never will be a great city'' schtick is hysterical. ''Great cities'' have lots of crappy projects and missed opportunities, and lots of non-great cities have fantastic ones, and so on. I commend CH for drawing attention to this, but wish he weren't so dramatic...
Click to expand...

1. I agree with you on Hume. He seems to be getting more and more melodramatic lately. The price to be paid for becoming a blogger?

2. I'm still having a problem with what's wrong with putting a friggin' ice rink into a place that's supposed to be sports fields and public park. Is it the fact it's 4 pads? That they're planning surface parking? Then make it 2 pads with parking on the roof! It's not like they're planning on building in the middle of the Don estuary, either -- this is for the corner of Commissioners and Cherry, no? So, down the road from the artificial soccer pitches?

But I'm part of the 'girls' hockey lobby', and part of the worst part -- my daughter plays at Leaside. Obviously this makes me evil and nefarious, because I think ice rinks are a good thing.
 
allabootmatt said:
I think Hume might need to cool it a bit. The apparent failure so far to design a facility that's going to be sensitive to the precinct plan is certainly lamentable, and steps should be taken to correct it etc. etc. But this ''never will be a great city'' schtick is hysterical. ''Great cities'' have lots of crappy projects and missed opportunities, and lots of non-great cities have fantastic ones, and so on. I commend CH for drawing attention to this, but wish he weren't so dramatic...
Click to expand...

He is dramatic, but let's not lose sight of the issue he's pointing out. The eastern waterfront area is a blank slate to build a model district that can attract and inspire Torontonians and others from the region and beyond, but it's like with every passing month we discover some new unfortunate compromise to the visions of the talented professionals hired by Waterfront Toronto like Ken Greenberg. Now we here that this complex will have a lot of surface level parking. It's a large and noticeable complex, so it would be counterproductive to neglect the urban design of this project if the area is supposed to be urban, walkable, and attractive.
 
I've seen skating rinks in Europe that are part of a high rise development, for instance the ice rink would take up the 5th and 6th floors and there would be office space or parking below/above. Although it is probably a lot more difficult to do this sort of think with a 4 ice pad facility.
 
Thanks for the links.


(I would love to see this moved, as well as the rest of the waterfront threads, to the development section. If we can have a thread about Canoe Park in the development section, surely this development should be there too).
 
It's astonishing to see plans being developed now that in all likelihood, I will not be around to see developed even if they occur at the expected current rate (unless someone wheels me over to see how it's going - and I may not want that, as I might miss jell-o if I leave the home).
 
So I should be around 55 by the time this is done according to the 25 year timeline they have for this. Hopefully I will still be around! I'd really like to see this all come to fruition. It's beautiful.
 
Regarding West Don Lands:

How many are familiar with the history of the area? Here's a photo from 1955:

BAoiltankfire1955.jpg
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top