bgobgo
Active Member
I love art but I’d prefer that the $25M they are seeking for the art go towards assuring we get that conditional footbridge (#6) making it easier to access the area from the waterfront.
Toronto Lower Don Lands Redevelopment | ?m | ?s | Waterfront Toronto
Northern Light
Superstar
I concur, my issue is one of degree here.
If you look at the map above, the art is spread out on both sides of the river throughout most of its East-West length.
Many fauna and even flora really require a certain amount of isolation from humans in order to flourish, and I would have preferred to see a more meaningful area where we kept to a single, minimally intrusive path.
As noted above, there is a disruption to the ecosystem, it's not particular to the art, per se, but rather the level/intensity of nearby human activity and intrusion. I would certainly say there are too many trails and would have preferred a more rationalized network that set aside more space buffered from high levels of human presence.
That too. I am of the 'Less is More' school here; meaning few public art installations of greater quality with an endowment to ensure long-term maintenance.
Last edited:
Start Fox
Active Member
The fact the $25 million would come from a specific donor suggests the money can't just be re-purposed.
But in any event, I love the idea of the Art Walk. Public art can be the difference between it being just another park and being a destination.
My one thing is that I generally dislike temporary art. It always feels like such a waste - one step forward but then one step back. Focus on permanent art.
But in any event, I love the idea of the Art Walk. Public art can be the difference between it being just another park and being a destination.
My one thing is that I generally dislike temporary art. It always feels like such a waste - one step forward but then one step back. Focus on permanent art.
Ward8
Active Member
The north south ROWs on the island should be waaaaaay skinnier. Here is a picture of a 20 meter ROW in Canary.
Thats a massive amount of room for a 200 meter road. Removing the parking would be appropriate, but they could go way further. They could have north south connections be one way, or fully pedestrianized in come cases. Also, as a community surrounded by nature and parks I feel like street trees are less essential on every single road (and I love street trees.) I the example above, if you moved one building edge to the middle of the road, you would still have one vehicle lane and ample pedestrian space. approx 12 meters. This is one of the key mistakes that shouldn't be repeated.
Northern Light
Superstar
I would use the word 'excessive'; but essentially, we're in agreement.
Yes.
I would say 'somewhat' rather than 'way' I think there's room to trim vehicle lane width, and frankly on some streets, room to trim the sidewalk width a bit too, but not by a huge amount.
Street trees aren't just about 'nature'. For me they are pretty essential aesthetic aspect of most streets, you need some 'softening' to all the hardscape.
Beyond that, the shade aspect is important, both for pedestrian comfort on a hot summer's day, and to reduce the urban heat island effect and mitigate climate change.
I can't really agree w/cutting the number of trees in any material way.
Again, I agree some of these can be narrowed, it's a matter of how much, and what you cut.
Minimum size for a vehicle lane is 3.0M; though for curb lanes the City strongly favours 3.3M
Minimum size for a sidewalk, with no streetscaping at all is 2.1M
Minimum width for boulevard treatment with trees is ~2M
Minimum size for one lane travel, with streetscape sidewalks, 11.5M, for bi-directional car lanes, 14.8M under current policy.
To show he work:
West Sidewalk: 2.1M pedestrian clearway, 2M planting strip (4.1M total)
South Vehicle Lane: 3.3M
North Vehicle Lane 3.3M
East Sidewalk: 2.1M pedestrian clearway, 2M planting strip (4.1M total)
Now here's the tough bits, the City likes room equal to a 3rd vehicle lane that can be purposed as a left-hand turn lane. One can choose to omit that subject to traffic impacts, or remove all streetscaping at intersections.
Another tough bit, if you want patio space, it can't encroach on the 2.1M pedestrian clearway.
To bring it all together, I agree the 20M could be narrower, exact sidewalk width is subject to capacity formula and those details aren't in front of us, but I expect there is some excess here, the parking can leave; but there are real limits on how narrow you can go. These would be offset if we actually more streets (but small) with a finer-grained grid; but we don't tend to produce designs like that.
evandyk
Senior Member
Leaving aside the width of Front St, which at least is wide because there's stuff there - statues, splash pad, bixi stands, nice patios, etc. - those wide cross streets make walking Front St way longer than it has to be. Especially since the curb cuts do not line up with where you actually walk if you're strolling along the generous middle section.
AlexBozikovic
Active Member
In broad strokes, @Northern Light ’s thinking aligns with the city approach to transportation: you need a certain volume of road space to accommodate traffic. The thing is, this is entirely backwards. When building a new neighbourhood on the edge of downtown, policy should aim to make it difficult and annoying to drive. Having limited vehicle capacity is a feature, not a bug.
The design of street networks should not react to the existing set of transportation choices but should try and alter them.
If half of Villiers was closed to private vehicles, would developers build housing? Would people choose to live there? Sure would be interesting to find out. I think the answer would be an enthusiastic yes.
W. K. Lis
Superstar
Any higher density needs to consider the water and sewage infrastructure to the area. All that shit has to go someplace. Even though the Ashbridges Bay Wastewater Treatment Plant is literally next door. They have to expand the treatment plant handle any additional sewage coming in, not just the Don Lands, but other developments (both high-rise and low-rise) around Toronto.
Don't want to become what they do in Dubai.
Don't want to become what they do in Dubai.
Ward8
Active Member
I'm sold on street trees, but in some cases one row of trees is enough. They can provide shade for the whole right of way if it's narrow enough.
I appreciate the regulations from the city, but I think in this case they are wrong and should be ignored. The distance from Villers to Commissioners is 200 meters. Not a distance that needs a car, so it makes sense not to accomodate them in any meaningful way. Below is a development in London. Less dense, approx 6 floor buildings but the ROWs are ample. Street trees are able to provide shade and there is room for a bike lane if you got rid of the parking. This is 40% smaller than what is proposed at 13 meters. This is a 2 way street by the way.
Bottom line. I think the cities traffic planning is bad and they should have more flexibility in their road design. Especially for streets where cars are completely unnecessary. (aside from deliveries and accessibility needs. )
AlvinofDiaspar
Moderator
I suspect Fire Services would veto that design., for one - there were similar discussions in the early days of the Regent Park plan.
AoD
Northern Light
Superstar
I'm as pro-transit and pro-active transportation as they come.
I've openly advocated for narrow vehicle lanes, fewer vehicle lanes and less or even no on-street parking; suggesting that I support the status quo is simply not correct.
I am, however, explaining what current City policy is; and why; and then we can agree over what policies we should be able to change easily ( remove street parking); and then get into the nitty gritty on some of the more challenging
elements.
Reducing room for cars is desirable, it's fairly easy actually, you just have to cap parking provision low enough; but you have to do that in order to make less vehicle capacity workable.
But you also have to address vehicle size, since that dictates things like turning radii, size of queue lanes, road width on streets which feature loading/delivery access. I have advocated for reducing legal truck length.
I think we need to; but until we do, we have to be mindful of the room taken up when a big rig has to back into a loading dock.
W. K. Lis
Superstar
Need room for snow windrows. A grassy verge needs to be set aside where the snow could be cleared (for emergency vehicles, garbage trucks, deliveries, etc.), including clearing the sidewalks and cycling paths. Trees could be placed on the verge, if there is room for the roots.If there is a garage, street parking should only be for visitors.
If the garage is actually used for their motor vehicle. Singular. If the residents use their garage for storing their camping equipment, Christmas decorations, and lawn equipment, they should consider making sure there is storage space in their homes for that or using public storage units. Storage unit facilities should be included in the neighbourhood, since many condos have very small storage units or none at all.
If the garage is actually used for their motor vehicle. Singular. If the residents use their garage for storing their camping equipment, Christmas decorations, and lawn equipment, they should consider making sure there is storage space in their homes for that or using public storage units. Storage unit facilities should be included in the neighbourhood, since many condos have very small storage units or none at all.
just east of the creek
Active Member
This is a really interesting discussion and I keep thinking of neighborhoods both in Europe and Asia where similar street constraints existed (although almost none from a deliberate modern planning exercise). Great places to live, work and play in - but not car less by any means. The planning idea is favorable from a general 'good neighborhood ambience' point of view. But there are challenges. There is always going to be a % of the population that will use some form of vehicle - be it electric, hybrid, ICE and some mixture of Motorbike to SUV/VAN. Off-street parking and service is going to be needed in some format within the neighborhoods. And a good % of that constituency is going to want/demand access, and easy access to their 'wheels'. Beyond that little hurdle, there are the street considerations that need to be made for emergency services (A Toronto Fire Services Aerial Unit can run 32m in length), city services (Garbage, snow removal etc. etc.), public transit buses, general construction and maintenance services, and the above mentioned snow windrows. All of these are going to drive minimum requirements for planning. None of this should be more then a challenge to delivering a streetscape with many fewer parked cars, greater street ambience and increased access for the walker, the biker and others. Now, can we also address the proliferation of hydro poles and overhead wiring.
Ward8
Active Member
I suspect they would. They could use to learn from other jurisdictions when it comes to their vehicle selection. It always seemed strange to me that other cities can fight fires that we can't. As if fire behaves differently here. Regent park is another of something decent that could have been excellent.
I totally respect where you are coming from here, and it's good to think of change that is easily achievable, but I would submit that the city's rules are fundamentally flawed. They lack creativity and hate non uniformity. In this case, only cherry and commissioners need wider right of ways to accommodate big trucks. Interior streets can regulate truck size automatically by keeping retail small on those streets. I'm only really speaking of the north south streets. They have something good here, but the city is excessively rigid in their road design and it will hamper the ability for this to succeed as something great.
For the first part, I think we can let the market decide who wants to live in this area. If they want a big SUV they would be free to live somewhere else. All of these other issues are dealt with in other cities without issue. Even in Toronto, some of our best places don't meet the minimum standards they want to achieve here.
W. K. Lis
Superstar
Europe and Asia make do with smaller fire trucks. Maybe Toronto should as well.