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

[skycandy]

Various viewpoints (from east to west):

 

[UtakataNoAnnex]

I am going to take a controversial position and ask: Do we really need all those buildings there?

...years and years of no ending construction. Or when it does end, Earth would of have colonized Mars already. A simple resolve of just covering the areas in question with more meadows, trees and pedestrian right of ways...leaving the rest to the industry that already exists there. I get that it's less sexy, but the money that would be saved on capital expenditures and a place where humans and other local animals can escape to seems more of win/win situation for me. And save us the blight of seeing backhoes, hording and dirt mounds in perpetuity and a dog's age. /sigh

 

[hawc]

^^^ So... is the west plug into Lake Ontario totally gone? Looks like it.

 

[jxmyth_]

I am going to take a controversial position and ask: Do we really need all those buildings there?

...years and years of no ending construction. Or when it does end, Earth would of have colonized Mars already. A simple resolve of just covering the areas in question with more meadows, trees and pedestrian right of ways...leaving the rest to the industry that already exists there. I get that it's less sexy, but the money that would be saved on capital expenditures and a place where humans and other local animals can escape to seems more of win/win situation for me. And save us the blight of seeing backhoes, hording and dirt mounds in perpetuity and a dog's age. /sigh

Cmon we’re only 7yrs away from pretending to solve the current housing crisis.

I’ve frequently mused about not populating Villiers, but suppose that the schools and daycare centers proposed would best be used by folks living there.

Though I feel like after seeing all the work being done on the Port lands new ecology, the fish and birds returning, the old plant species being brought back to life that towers and unleashed dogs are just going to waste it. It’ll be a tough balance for sure.

It’ll never happen, but I wish we could preserve Villiers for nature, and replace all the studios and eastern buildings with towers etc. Tho hey, maybe studios see more value in land than Hallmark Christmas movies and sell over time.

But this is where I wish we’d be employing ai- build out prospective models to determine best use. Cuz I’m kinda tired of trying to be a progressive, supportive human having to keep up with popular urban opinion. Two Kings is IT! Cool. We must live and die by Jane Jacobs! Sure, eyes on the street. Makes sense. Transit City will save us! Got it. Island Airport will ruin us! Totally. We need more green space! Naturally. K, forget everything else - 45-100 storey towers on every corner or you hate poor people! Wait, whut? You’ve already got a ravine- more supertalls! Cmon…

In ten years, Villiers will have people there- if we have streetcars funded for it- Metrolinx will somehow see to it taking 20yrs. Maybe East Harbour will…exist in some form? We’ll likely have gone through at least one recession and real estate collapse, and Therme spa will have finally turned into a casino. I have a feeling that in that span, Rebel/Cabana/golf lands, and the Hearn will be the ultimate determinants of the port lands success.

Maybe we’ll finally get a Home Depot

 

[rdaner]

This is the first time that I have seen a clearer idea of what is imagined for Villiers Park at the east end of the district. Love that playing fields are contemplated but I am wondering if a configuration can be done that would allow for a cricket pitch on the northern edge of the park to alternate with the soccer pitch?

The thing that struck me about this overall view of the wider Portlands area is how much development is yet to come on east end.

These images clearly show the scale of the buildings in this district, similar to Canary House just to the north.

Love the inclusion of locations for the library and community centre. As far as the community centre goes I wonder if this is what has been referred to as a regional athletic facility?

This inclusion of a new type of zoning is what really stands out for me. This will dramatically alter the timeline for initial development for the better and can serve as an example of a measure that can be applied in other urban settings, such as central London.

 

[3Dementia]

^ Love that Oslo VIA from Schmidt Hammer Lassen... maybe a Norwegian firm and 2 or 3 Danish firms (we know well) should take care of the entire neighbourhood.

 

[kev1n1m]

I am going to take a controversial position and ask: Do we really need all those buildings there?

...years and years of no ending construction. Or when it does end, Earth would of have colonized Mars already. A simple resolve of just covering the areas in question with more meadows, trees and pedestrian right of ways...leaving the rest to the industry that already exists there. I get that it's less sexy, but the money that would be saved on capital expenditures and a place where humans and other local animals can escape to seems more of win/win situation for me. And save us the blight of seeing backhoes, hording and dirt mounds in perpetuity and a dog's age. /sigh

We have a very under-utilized Toronto Island Park and Tommy Thompson Park nearby to accomplish what you're asking. It would be a 'waste of infrastructure' if we built all this and let it naturalize. Instead, think of the taxbase that will be built in the coming decades. It will pay for itself many times over.

And I see no issue with decades of construction. It's the price of being brand new. The same has been true of the West Don Lands, now going on the 15th year of heavy construction, but it's stlll a functional neighborhood for people.

As someone who missed out on buying a home when I could afford one, I quite frankly find your suggestions laughable. I wish there were 25,000 units here, not just 9,000.

 

[Northern Light]

We have a very under-utilized Toronto Island Park and Tommy Thompson Park nearby to accomplish what you're asking

The amount of parkland in Toronto, on a per person basis, has declined significantly over the last 20 years.

We've added upwards of 40% more people, and less than 10% more parkland.

It's entirely fair to suggest we're not going to be able to reach a goal of 40% or that there may be better locations to do so, (ie. serving areas with less parkland and more people, and weighting that against the potential for economic returns and affordable housing here); but the idea that the amount of parkland in general, is sufficient is not reasonable.

Nor are the two parks you cited reasonable in terms of serving this area, as access to the Islands requires a paid ferry ride and a considerable trip time from this area, while the Spit is a better choice, it's also a narrow, kilometers long space, which does serve nature well, but is not all that easily accessed as a local service. (ie. you can't drive or take some form of transportation to the interior, or far-end of the spit, and asking people to walk up to 5km to access a space is not that reasonable.

. It would be a 'waste of infrastructure' if we built all this and let it naturalize. Instead, think of the taxbase that will be built in the coming decades. It will pay for itself many times over.

It absolutely will not.

I take no issue w/advocating development here; there are certainly reasons to do so, from housing to economic development.

But the cost of delivering the flood proofing, new river, new Lake Shore, new bridges, new schools, new community centres and new transit will exceed 10B.
The resulting development will also have operating costs, waste pick-up, lawn mowing, flower beds, streetlights, pot holes, snow removal, community centres, Fire/EMS etc etc.
The City will not clear a net benefit for the project for decades to come on a purely net new taxes above and beyond cost of services delivered basis.

That doesn't mean we shouldn't do development here, but that it will return net proceeds in the short or medium term is not the correct argument.

As someone who missed out on buying a home when I could afford one, I quite frankly find your suggestions laughable. I wish there were 25,000 units here, not just 9,000.

That is really too much, and then a bit. 25,000 units here would be a slum. It would literally be the densest community on earth.

Ferocious winds, no sunlight, elevator waits of up to 45 minutes at peak times, kids needs to be bussed to schools an hour away...........

To argue for poverty, pollution unending traffic gridlock, transit jammed to the gills is not at all reasonable.

Its fair to advocate for development, its not fair to argue for a completely untenable level of development that would create nothing but crises.

 

[jxmyth_]

It’s not like Island Park or Tommy Thompson are “under-utilized” for no reason. I mean, we’ve also got great forests in Banff, so long as you wanna make the trip-

I also don’t know if 25,000 condos are gonna be any cheaper than the 9,000. We’ve been increasing supply for 20yrs and I haven’t seen any big bargains (yet).

Pinnacle adding 10 more floors for its 105 storey super-tall isn’t making any of their units cheaper.

 

[jxmyth_]

The amount of parkland in Toronto, on a per person basis, has declined significantly over the last 20 years.

We've added upwards of 40% more people, and less than 10% more parkland.

It's entirely fair to suggest we're not going to be able to reach a goal of 40% or that there may be better locations to do so, (ie. serving areas with less parkland and more people, and weighting that against the potential for economic returns and affordable housing here); but the idea that the amount of parkland in general, is sufficient is not reasonable.

Nor are the two parks you cited reasonable in terms of serving this area, as access to the Islands requires a paid ferry ride and a considerable trip time from this area, while the Spit is a better choice, it's also a narrow, kilometers long space, which does serve nature well, but is not all that easily accessed as a local service. (ie. you can't drive or take some form of transportation to the interior, or far-end of the spit, and asking people to walk up to 5km to access a space is not that reasonable.



It absolutely will not.

I take no issue w/advocating development here; there are certainly reasons to do so, from housing to economic development.

But the cost of delivering the flood proofing, new river, new Lake Shore, new bridges, new schools, new community centres and new transit will exceed 10B.
The resulting development will also have operating costs, waste pick-up, lawn mowing, flower beds, streetlights, pot holes, snow removal, community centres, Fire/EMS etc etc.
The City will not clear a net benefit for the project for decades to come on a purely net new taxes above and beyond cost of services delivered basis.

That doesn't mean we shouldn't do development here, but that it will return net proceeds in the short or medium term is not the correct argument.



That is really too much, and then a bit. 25,000 units here would be a slum. It would literally be the densest community on earth.

Ferocious winds, no sunlight, elevator waits of up to 45 minutes at peak times, kids needs to be bussed to schools an hour away...........

To argue for poverty, pollution unending traffic gridlock, transit jammed to the gills is not at all reasonable.

It’s fair to advocate for development, it’s not fair to argue for a completely untenable level of development that would create nothing but crises.

Huzzah!

Here’s my question tho, do planners have regularly updated rubrics that calculate the maximum density based on acreage and roadways? Like, Villiers is X sq km, there are 3 roadways with x capacity - and the 3rd bridge actually adds Xmin onto a commute therefore it’s likely that only X% of commuters will take that route, meaning bridges 1-2 will take on X more number of vehicles? Then look at all associated community needs and factor that in, run it with a slide ruler- and Villiers can only maintain X number of units? And if so- why bother listening to us?

That is where I see ai coming in -being able to take any number of disparate data vectors and provide us with an accurate simulation. Like get Doctor Strange to go build Villiers on SimCity and tell us how many successful permutations we get with X number of units. We can’t keep planning off social whims.

Folks gonna show up to that community meeting muttering whichever urban planning fad we’re currently on about, and I just wish we had better numbers presented to lead the argument .

That being said, I feel like a contained island like that has as much potential to be a rich enclave as it does a slum- and it’s whether it can attract money and investment long term that determines that. Arguably we could rehome all the Annex residents here and put towers along the Bloor subway.

 

[kev1n1m]

The amount of parkland in Toronto, on a per person basis, has declined significantly over the last 20 years.

We've added upwards of 40% more people, and less than 10% more parkland.

It's entirely fair to suggest we're not going to be able to reach a goal of 40% or that there may be better locations to do so, (ie. serving areas with less parkland and more people, and weighting that against the potential for economic returns and affordable housing here); but the idea that the amount of parkland in general, is sufficient is not reasonable.

Nor are the two parks you cited reasonable in terms of serving this area, as access to the Islands requires a paid ferry ride and a considerable trip time from this area, while the Spit is a better choice, it's also a narrow, kilometers long space, which does serve nature well, but is not all that easily accessed as a local service. (ie. you can't drive or take some form of transportation to the interior, or far-end of the spit, and asking people to walk up to 5km to access a space is not that reasonable.



It absolutely will not.

I take no issue w/advocating development here; there are certainly reasons to do so, from housing to economic development.

But the cost of delivering the flood proofing, new river, new Lake Shore, new bridges, new schools, new community centres and new transit will exceed 10B.
The resulting development will also have operating costs, waste pick-up, lawn mowing, flower beds, streetlights, pot holes, snow removal, community centres, Fire/EMS etc etc.
The City will not clear a net benefit for the project for decades to come on a purely net new taxes above and beyond cost of services delivered basis.

That doesn't mean we shouldn't do development here, but that it will return net proceeds in the short or medium term is not the correct argument.



That is really too much, and then a bit. 25,000 units here would be a slum. It would literally be the densest community on earth.

Ferocious winds, no sunlight, elevator waits of up to 45 minutes at peak times, kids needs to be bussed to schools an hour away...........

To argue for poverty, pollution unending traffic gridlock, transit jammed to the gills is not at all reasonable.

Its fair to advocate for development, its not fair to argue for a completely untenable level of development that would create nothing but crises.

You're great at painting a grim picture but every reason you cited not to build high density here has easy and reasonable solutions.

Yes there is a dirth of greenspace in Toronto, especially in areas that are densifying quick like downtown, but access to the islands and Tommy Thomson Park could easily be resolved by building the proposed streetcar routes to TTP, and adding new ferry service to TIP. We're about to double our ferry fleet. I'm sure it's possible to add a route that will serve the thousands from this area.

Ferocious winds

The entire waterfront is like this. There are ways to mitigate.

25,000 units here would be a slum.

It doesn't have to be, by any means. If a private developer were in charge of this large an area, I would have conerns, but I hold WaterfrontToronto to a mich higher standard.

It would literally be the densest community on earth.

Not even close. It's only 2.5x what's planned, and again, surrounded by a massive job hub (East Harbour), lots of planned transit (fingers crossed), and endless green space.

no sunlight, elevator waits of up to 45 minutes at peak times, kids needs to be bussed to schools an hour away. To argue for poverty, pollution unending traffic gridlock, transit jammed to the gills is not at all reasonable.

Don't need to argue these, they're complete fabrications.

 

[Northern Light]

You're great at painting a grim picture

I think of myself and pride myself on being pragmatic and balanced. That's not to suggest I get everything right in that regard every time, but I certainly try to.

I don't think the picture I paint of 25,000 units is at all unreasonable.

but every reason you cited not to build high density here has easy and reasonable solutions.

Questionable.

, but access to the islands and Tommy Thomson Park could easily be resolved by building the proposed streetcar routes to TTP

There is no proposed streetcar route to TTP. None.

, and adding new ferry service to TIP.

We're this done, how does it resolve the problem of a fare to access the neighbourhood park?

We're about to double our ferry fleet.

We are? Seriously, I read the budget every year, this is the first I've heard of this........maybe I missed it, please provide a link.

The entire waterfront is like this. There are ways to mitigate.

Sure, we can provide more parkland, which turns your now endless row of 70-storey towers into 90 storey towers.

We can provide more space in schools and community centres and police stations and so on, but that makes the median tower height 98 storeys.

None of which mitigates shadow and the cost economics of ever more elevators on ever smaller floor plates that will drive the housing to astronomical prices.

It doesn't have to be, by any means. If a private developer were in charge of this large an area, I would have conerns, but I hold WaterfrontToronto to a mich higher standard.

Waterfront Toronto is an above average developer/landholder, but they can't over come basic math.

****

With great respect, I make arguments based on evidence I cite to a large degree, and with a track record that establishes I have a pretty good understanding of development and planning math.

100% I get it wrong now and again, it happens to us all.

But if you're going to argue I'm out to lunch, I'd like to see your homework. (evidence, math, anything that actually supports your position.)

 

[UtakataNoAnnex]

As per usual, Northern Light-san is getting the last laugh... <3

 

[Northern Light]

Huzzah!

Here’s my question tho, do planners have regularly updated rubrics that calculate the maximum density based on acreage and roadways? Like, Villiers is X sq km, there are 3 roadways with x capacity - and the 3rd bridge actually adds Xmin onto a commute therefore it’s likely that only X% of commuters will take that route, meaning bridges 1-2 will take on X more number of vehicles? Then look at all associated community needs and factor that in, run it with a slide ruler- and Villiers can only maintain X number of units? And if so- why bother listening to us?

The short answer is 'No' but the longer answer is more nuanced.

Planning Applications are to include a Transportation Impact Study.

Such applications are to examine the effect of development 'x' on the road, public transit, and sidewalk/cycling network.

Transportation Services then gets to have a look at that report and comment, which informs City Planning's position.

***

Is the Traffic Impact Study accurate and correct? One hopes so, and often it will be, but that's not necessarily a given.

Does City Transportation automatically question everything in such a study? No

In the real world there is neither sufficient time nor expertise to parse everything. With any luck the study is read or skimmed end to end, and certain boxes are checked (or not); then Transportation raises issues if
they see obvious flags, things that are either not in line with accepted protocol or where the numbers may seem intuitively off.

Planning takes all the various comments from different departments, agencies and stakeholders into account and then makes a recommendation.

 

[hawc]

Two shots from today. Villiers Island really is an island now.

And then with this quick photoshop below, you can really see what it'll look like with the plug removed and the Don River flowing freely into the Lower Don Lands.