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

[Northern Light]

I understand it's a big ask, but this is the future of our city! And the last developable parcel of land right near the heart of downtown.

What is a big ask? You need to be specific. Also, you're welcome ( I took the time to answer your question and tell you how to move the needle). If you want a specific idea evaluated, if I have time, I will.

It shouldn't intrinsically be this...boring.

Boring? None of the buildings have actually been designed yet. This is a zoning exercise at this stage. There is not one single piece of architecture here. The 'boxes' are not the actual shapes proposed, just approximate heights and siting.

I think WT did pretty nice on the bridges and deserve credit there. I don't care for the currently installed streetlights.......but I digress.

I did see something about flexible zoning as the landscape changes, but again contemporary urban planning practises are trying to de-emphasize reliance on and design of streets for automobiles in general.
This is deeply North American thinking and needs to stop.

This development is far from auto-centric in its modelling. Could it be more assertive in substance or aesthetic in that regard? Sure.

But you'll have to change other things. I don't know where people get the idea that WT want 'x' percentage of people driving, they have to build based on what modelling suggests is likely to occur based on current and proposed transit, and other factors.

Now, how would you induce more people to work locally? (hint, this requires less residential in order to provide more employment)

How would you boost transit beyond what is currently proposed? Who is going to pay for that?

Can some underlying assumptions on modal share be questioned/tweaked? Probably but to do that, you're going to have to shift modal share in adjacent areas/downtown fairly quickly. (proving that it can be done here)

One example of something that may help is the carsharing proposal that just passed committee. I think this might just shift 3-5 points of modal share within a couple of years and reduce car ownership rates.

But you need to advocate for that to pass Council, then you need to ask WT to remodel parking demand based on that change.

Once the major outline for the Community is set, certain aspects will be hard to change. But reducing street parking, or in-building parking will not be, that's an easy change that can be delivered block by block as the community is built.

 

[abovegrade]

What is a big ask? You need to be specific. Also, you're welcome ( I took the time to answer your question and tell you how to move the needle). If you want a specific idea evaluated, if I have time, I will.



Boring? None of the buildings have actually been designed yet. This is a zoning exercise at this stage. There is not one single piece of architecture here. The 'boxes' are not the actual shapes proposed, just approximate heights and siting.

I think WT did pretty nice on the bridges and deserve credit there. I don't care for the currently installed streetlights.......but I digress.



This development is far from auto-centric in its modelling. Could it be more assertive in substance or aesthetic in that regard? Sure.

But you'll have to change other things. I don't know where people get the idea that WT want 'x' percentage of people driving, they have to build based on what modelling suggests is likely to occur based on current and proposed transit, and other factors.

Now, how would you induce more people to work locally? (hint, this requires less residential in order to provide more employment)

How would you boost transit beyond what is currently proposed? Who is going to pay for that?

Can some underlying assumptions on modal share be questioned/tweaked? Probably but to do that, you're going to have to shift modal share in adjacent areas/downtown fairly quickly. (proving that it can be done here)

One example of something that may help is the carsharing proposal that just passed committee. I think this might just shift 3-5 points of modal share within a couple of years and reduce car ownership rates.

But you need to advocate for that to pass Council, then you need to ask WT to remodel parking demand based on that change.

Once the major outline for the Community is set, certain aspects will be hard to change. But reducing street parking, or in-building parking will not be, that's an easy change that can be delivered block by block as the community is built.

Thanks for taking the time to answer.

Also, I meant it more broad. It seems that overall there is dissatisfaction with the pedestrian realm, compared to what other cities are doing and in my opinion vs what we are doing in Downsview (despite incredible transit coverage at that site vs here). C'mon though, obviously I know I don't have the funding for anything, I am not insinuating as such and realize that it would take a lot. I feel a lack of ambition, somehow, somewhere... it feels maybe not as groundbreaking.

I am maybe jumping the gun and just feel passionate and (like others) want this to be a neighbourhood we can all enjoy. I think prioritizing this however possible will enhance the overall image, experience, and result of the site. But yeah, it might be too late.

And the bridges are okay imo, but they are not as cool as what i've seen in Copenhagen.

 

[hawc]

Come pay your respects to the last bits of the old Cherry Street Bridge. It's nearly gone.

 

[Northern Light]

Thanks for taking the time to answer.

You're welcome.

Also, I meant it more broad. It seems that overall there is dissatisfaction with the pedestrian realm

Right, so again, what is it you want to change? No one has actually decided the colour of interlocking paving yet. (on streets not yet tendered for construction) There are master plans, but not all the stuff is ordered, there's lots of room to change 'details'.

You need some kind of specific ask. It can't just be 'do more/better'.

Less on-street parking is a viable request and virtually cost-free. Where the change is minor, its a rounding error. Removing most/all of the street parking is a bigger ask that needs to come with several other changes.

But yeah, it might be too late.

Too late for a complete re-think of the zoning? .....I mean it's very feasible, but it will delay the current implementation timeline.

For changes to the public realm there is still lots of time with minimal impact on the overall project timeline.

 

[Rascacielo]

Today

 

[Collingwoodbuildinglover]

Collingwood is fun. You have a nice lookout to Toronto from that ski hill.

We call it a ski bump actually

 

[kyler]

Alex' column must be dismissed for being factually incorrect.

Because he said 24 hectares instead of the 22 from your custom made-up map?

 

[Northern Light]

Because he said 24 hectares instead of the 22 from your custom made-up map?

First, if you read what he posted he also stated 33ha.

***

Second, here's where you find Villiers labelled as 22ha, Wikipedia:

The second place you find size info is on the Waterfront Toronto website, here:

Villiers Island | Waterfront Toronto

The Villiers Island precinct (formerly referred to as Cousins Quay) will be a stunning new waterfront community that embraces its distinct industrial functions and the spectacular new parks, public spaces and ecological richness that will result from the naturalization of the mouth of the Don...

www.waterfrontoronto.ca

Which you will see below indicates less than 20ha developable.

***

You seem to enjoy responding to my posts with lots of snark, I'm not sure why, but I know what I'm talking about and I can back it up.

 

[jxmith_]

Bridge is still up, boat is docked, planes flying

 

[allengeorge]

@Northern Light Am I understanding correctly that one of the major determiners as to road size in Villiers is the lack of transit? Or at least, undersized transit when the LRT is (maybe) built?

 

[mburrrrr]

From tonight.

 

[Northern Light]

@Northern Light Am I understanding correctly that one of the major determiners as to road size in Villiers is the lack of transit? Or at least, undersized transit when the LRT is (maybe) built?

On minor streets it should not be.

ROW will be dictated by a number of things........from separation distances between buildings (which includes sidewalk, not just curb to curb), and the choice to provide for street parking.

On larger streets, maybe..............

Why maybe?

Because there a couple of dependencies, one is how much traffic you assume in total and modal share is definitely a dependent factor. So if you conclude (I'm not looking this up for Villiers right now) this is just 'generic example' that 40% of people will commute by car, then that's how you size the roads, you have to allow for the capacity necessary to get people into their community and their parking.

When coming up w/that number there are a lot of complex, and inter-active elements.

Example:

- How many people work locally in live/work or nearby retail/office? Those people should, ideally be walking or cycling commuters.

- But people who work downtown and/or further distances, are more likely to choose a car.

That choice is function of transit capacity and speed (total journey time) vs the car.

It's also a choice based on the price of parking at your destination (and at home)

There are lots of different assumptions that have to go into the modelling and it isn't that easy. Is there a parking tax? (yes/no); is Permit Parking city wide? Yes/No; etc etc.

****

The above said, the modelled transit capacity from WELRT suggests limitations in both capacity and uptake. It scores much better if you add the Broadview LRT. But still there are challenges

The density proposed here is very subway worthy, but there isn't one proposed. That's one seriously expensive add-on.

Choices.

 

[allengeorge]

The density proposed here is very subway worthy, but there isn't one proposed. That's one seriously expensive add-on.

Choices.

Wish I could simultaneously "Like" and "Sad" a post. Thanks - the explanation is much appreciated.

 

[allengeorge]

This makes me even more frustrated that the Waterfront East LRT is dragging and there wasn't an OL station closer to the Portlands.

 

[Northern Light]

This makes me even more frustrated that the Waterfront East LRT is dragging and there wasn't an OL station closer to the Portlands.

And it's unfortunate that things are the way they are; but it's good that you recognize the disconnect.

The density and the transit should be closely tied.

It's not just a subway for everyone, LOL; but it is understanding when the capacity, the speed and the routing justify same. (and/or more LRT, or BRT or w/e) and/or the density needs to go somewhere else, where the higher-order transit is located.