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

[allengeorge]

I think you need to find me examples we can discuss. Don't get me wrong, there are attractive mews and such...........but, well, lets take this 6M wide street in Boston:

View attachment 573809
Source: https://amateurplanner.blogspot.com/2016/02/there-has-been-lot-of-discussion-in.html

The sidewalks are not accessible to those with mobility aids /wheelchairs / strollers. Its too narrow.

There are no trees, and none will grow here, but even if they could, there wouldn't be a road at all anymore.

Toronto Fire would definitely balk.

Is it cute, sure, though I like my trees, but to be clear there are some very real tradeoffs.

****

From the same site as above:


View attachment 573810

ROW has trees, works for me....but, but.....

First, you have a 3-4s street wall and the ROW has now stretched to 11M wide. But notice the sidewalk with trees is again impassable to anyone with a stroller/wheelchair etc. They would have to walk in the street. Now imagine snowbanks.

I was in Beacon Hill recently, so I was amused that you happened to choose a few examples from there. Indeed - in a lot of cities with intact, circa 1700-era neighbourhoods (Boston, Philadelphia are the two I'm familiar with) you'll get narrow streets, narrow sidewalks and 2-3 storey high streetwalls. Trees are a rarity because they just can't grow without encroaching onto the roads or into the foundations of houses themselves.

That said, I think you could look at neighbourhoods in Brooklyn

Google Maps

Find local businesses, view maps and get driving directions in Google Maps.

maps.app.goo.gl

I think I measured the road as ~7m. The sidewalks are wide enough for trees and strollers. I don't know about accessibility devices. Basically all of Brooklyn Heights, Boerum Hill, Cobble Hill etc. look like this. 3 storey streetwalls are the norm, and I believe (don't quote me on this) - but 4 storeys are allowed on redevelopments in anything that isn't heritage.

These are two examples in the West Village:

Google Maps

Find local businesses, view maps and get driving directions in Google Maps.

maps.app.goo.gl

(first one is higher streetwalls)

Google Maps

Find local businesses, view maps and get driving directions in Google Maps.

maps.app.goo.gl

(this one again, around 3s; maybe 4)

Up in Hells Kitchen:

Google Maps

Find local businesses, view maps and get driving directions in Google Maps.

maps.app.goo.gl

I don't think these are particularly unique examples in New York. Large chunks of Manhattan and Brooklyn have the same typology - with 3s being on the lower end. Yes, both boroughs have plenty of very wide streets, but they have a lot of comparatively tight streets with 3s+ buildings on each side.

 

[allengeorge]

Philadelphia is quite interesting, because you get a more extreme case of what you see in New York. Even narrower streets, narrow row homes and often the ability to build up to 4s without issues. That said, often the sidewalks can be cramped and you have comparatively fewer trees.

 

[hawc]

Cannes is another good example. Tall building walls. Not a car in sight. Villiers should have the density of Cannes. Otherwise, boom... future St. James Town.

 

[IsaacKhouzam]

I think the observation that narrow streets in Boston, Philadelphia, etc. fail to meet modern mobility requirements is accurate, but misses the point slightly. It becomes far less important to provide things like accessible sidewalks when the roadway itself is safe and pleasant. The example in Cannes—although it was submitted in jest—shows that on a street like this you don't need sidewalks at all. The fact that cars are prevalent in the American examples of such spaces is a symptom of the fact that these are small islands of pre-car urban fabric in largely car-dependent cities; but in a healthier urban environment these streets would be dominated by foot-traffic, and I suspect that space (and mobility) would not be an issue.

It's an open question whether a truly car-lite or -free neighbourhood can be created out of scratch while the wider urban environment remains reliant on the car, but this planning framework, which insists on providing designated space for car + bike + pedestrian in every urban context, seems too timid to find out. The suggestion, for example, that parking could be provided on the perimeter of the new neighbourhood if we wanted to avoid having cars within, seems to miss the point. But of course, if we don't build the proper infrastructure to allow people to get around without a car, then we deserve what we get. It often feels like a problem of the chicken and the egg though...

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Cannes France is another good example. Tall building walls. Not a car in sight. Villiers should have the density of Cannes. Otherwise, boom... future St. James Town.

View attachment 574273

You can't build anything like that in the current regulatory environment. Something like Hell's Kitchen we can probably aim for - but note how short the buildings are on either side (with a roughly 1:1 building height to ROW ratio eyeballing) - that won't give you the density required. The HK is what we should aim for in our existing residential streets.

AoD

 

[Northern Light]

I think the observation that narrow streets in Boston, Philadelphia, etc. fail to meet modern mobility requirements is accurate, but misses the point slightly. It becomes far less important to provide things like accessible sidewalks when the roadway itself is safe and pleasant. The example in Cannes—although it was submitted in jest—shows that on a street like this you don't need sidewalks at all.

Snowbanks........mobility aids.......... do not agree. Also I value trees and want to combat climate change.

You can certainly try the 'shared street' model, but you still have to show how it would be accessible, and safe, including all required elements.

 

[Northern Light]

Cannes is another good example. Tall building walls. Not a car in sight. Villiers should have the density of Cannes. Otherwise, boom... future St. James Town.

View attachment 574273

Pretty photo, no trees, the uneven paving would not meet accessiblity standards, also, what 'tall' street walls, these do not exceed 4s. Where I've had issues w/people advocating tall street walls they've been advocating for greater than 4s, which is my recommended limit. (not overall building height limit, just street wall)

 

[DSC]

Cannes is another good example. Tall building walls. Not a car in sight. Villiers should have the density of Cannes. Otherwise, boom... future St. James Town.

View attachment 574273

Yes, Cannes and many old European Cities look great but we will not see them here. Might as well post photos of Mount Athos transportation.

 

[IsaacKhouzam]

Snowbanks........mobility aids.......... do not agree. Also I value trees and want to combat climate change.

You can certainly try the 'shared street' model, but you still have to show how it would be accessible, and safe, including all required elements.

I don't think snow-clearing on a street with no sidewalks is an insurmountable challenge, but maybe I'm misunderstanding your point. If we're able to clear lanes for vehicular traffic, what would be the specific challenge of clearing those same lanes for pedestrian traffic if cars were excluded (or if pedestrians and vehicles shared the space)?

To your point about trees: the fact that I believe there should be room in our cities for narrow streets that don't necessarily allow for street trees doesn't mean I don't think trees are important or that I don't want to combat climate change! But just as I think it is misguided to put so much emphasis on making streets "complete" (multi-modal), I also think it is misguided to exclude a valuable urban form from our toolkit because it is less favourable to street trees. The question of suitable street width and street-wall height has implications beyond Villiers Island. Most, but not all streets should be multi-modal, and most, but not all streets should have trees. Laneways, for example, which are only just beginning to be seen as viable urban spaces rather than just back-of-house and which could, eventually, resemble those four/five storey, narrow ROW streets in Boston. Off-topic, but relevant, I think.

 

[Northern Light]

I was in Beacon Hill recently, so I was amused that you happened to choose a few examples from there. Indeed - in a lot of cities with intact, circa 1700-era neighbourhoods (Boston, Philadelphia are the two I'm familiar with) you'll get narrow streets, narrow sidewalks and 2-3 storey high streetwalls. Trees are a rarity because they just can't grow without encroaching onto the roads or into the foundations of houses themselves.

That said, I think you could look at neighbourhoods in Brooklyn

Google Maps

Find local businesses, view maps and get driving directions in Google Maps.

maps.app.goo.gl

I think I measured the road as ~7m. The sidewalks are wide enough for trees and strollers. I don't know about accessibility devices. Basically all of Brooklyn Heights, Boerum Hill, Cobble Hill etc. look like this. 3 storey streetwalls are the norm, and I believe (don't quote me on this) - but 4 storeys are allowed on redevelopments in anything that isn't heritage.

Great pic, though lets let others see it w/o the click:

First, on the ROW, building face to building face, its 18M (16M from fence to fence).

Second, Curb to Curb, roadway is 9M.

Third, I take no issue w/streetwalls this height, 3.5s; everything in Villiers is already this tall (proposed), others are arguing for much taller streetwalls than these. I'm find w/streetwalls up to 3s on mews and 4s facing streets.

These are two examples in the West Village:

Google Maps

Find local businesses, view maps and get driving directions in Google Maps.

maps.app.goo.gl

(first one is higher streetwalls)

So Perry Street, overhead view first:

Ok.....can we talk about the absence of towers here and how this is much lower density than Villiers?

****

ROW (building face to face) is ~14M

Curb to Curb is 7.5M for the most part.

****

Now for Streetview:

Hmm, that looks like its working super well........ lots of cars, truck parked on the sidewalk blocking that accessible width..... insufficient space for a fire truck......

Up in Hells Kitchen:

Google Maps

Find local businesses, view maps and get driving directions in Google Maps.

maps.app.goo.gl

I don't think these are particularly unique examples in New York. Large chunks of Manhattan and Brooklyn have the same typology - with 3s being on the lower end. Yes, both boroughs have plenty of very wide streets, but they have a lot of comparatively tight streets with 3s+ buildings on each side.

Lets bring this one forward too:

Aerial first:

ROW: ~17M

Roadway: ~7M

Observations: Zero Towers; less dense than Villiers, lots of on-street parking, no cycling facilities, sidewalks do not meet accessibility standards due to trees and encroachments.

I looked up the population density of Hell's Kitchen as a whole. Its 103,000 per mile2 which is 39000 per km2.

Villiers is proposed to be 59,000 per km2, or 50% denser than Hell's kitchen.

****

I think people keep confusing feelings and anecdotes with math....

We can build Villiers similar to this, but we will have to cut the density by 1/3 and eliminate bike lanes, and build a subway.

 

[Northern Light]

I don't think snow-clearing on a street with no sidewalks is an insurmountable challenge, but maybe I'm misunderstanding your point. If we're able to clear lanes for vehicular traffic, what would be the specific challenge of clearing those same lanes for pedestrian traffic if cars were excluded (or if pedestrians and vehicles shared the space)?

Normal plowing operation of a traffic lane leaves a mound of snow (snowbank) off to one side. It is not removed except at intersections.

On a street such as this you would render access to the buildings nearly impossible, at least for anyone with a mobility aid.

Are there ways around this? Sure. We can modify snow removal operations to 100% remove snow, but since you can't fit a snow melting machine on the exemplifed street and even a full sized dump truck is dubious, it would be a costly and time consuming operation.

Alternatively, we could install snowmelt systems. I'm a big advocate for this idea by the way, and entirely serious, however, we (Toronto) have shown no inclination to give this idea serious consideration and these are not planned for Villiers. Of course, adding these will add costs.

 

[allengeorge]

First, on the ROW, building face to building face, its 18M (16M from fence to fence).

City-owned space in NYC would be fence to fence. So, that’s second number. Only in Philadelphia and Boston have I seen 3s/4s built straight up to the city line without a front yard. In these neighborhoods it would be incredibly unusual unless it was a small apartment building.

Third, I take no issue w/streetwalls this height, 3.5s;

I believe 4s are allowed, and as buildings get redeveloped you do see this. Generally that floor would either be let out as a separate unit, or the entire house would be turned into a duplex. Or, of course - if you have the $$$ you have a SFRH.

Ok.....can we talk about the absence of towers here and how this is much lower density than Villiers?

The previous picture in West Village has small apartment buildings. The WV has a mix of small apartment buildings and row homes depending on which street you’re on. I haven’t done the density calculations.

Hmm, that looks like its working super well........ lots of cars, truck parked on the sidewalk blocking that accessible width..... insufficient space for a fire truck......

NYC buildings aren’t burning down left, right and center, so maybe it’s not as big an issue as you imagine? Also, FDNY is pretty aggressive: if you’re in the way they WILL destroy your property to get to the fire. Finally, anecdotally, NYC has a different approach to fire houses than Toronto does: a lot more dispersed, smaller houses, so a single fire call scrambles units from 3,4 or 5 stations that all take different routes.

Observations: Zero Towers; less dense than Villiers, lots of on-street parking, no cycling facilities, sidewalks do not meet accessibility standards due to trees and encroachments.

Out of curiosity, how do you know it doesn’t meet accessibility requirements? Also, Hells Kitchen has plenty of larger buildings. The NYU Langone hospital, for example is one of them.

 

[allengeorge]

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

https://www.blogto.com/city/2024/06/toronto-artificial-river-aerial/ Thank you Jack! 🍻

urbantoronto.ca

If I understand the above correctly, and this plan:

https://www.waterfrontoronto.ca/sites/default/files/2024-04/WDRP-April-24-2024-Villiers-Island-Precinct-Plan-Proposed-Amendments.pdf

Most of the streets will be 20m ROW, with the exception of Cherry, Munition and Commissioners which will all be 40m?

 

[MOB]

I think people keep confusing feelings and anecdotes with math....

Fav comment

 

[Northern Light]

City-owned space in NYC would be fence to fence. So, that’s second number. Only in Philadelphia and Boston have I seen 3s/4s built straight up to the city line without a front yard. In these neighborhoods it would be incredibly unusual unless it was a small apartment building.

The concern when discussing streetwall height vs row is the amount of open space between the building faces, that's what allows sunlight in; property rights are not so much of a concern in that respect; though they are for sidewalk mobility purposes.

I believe 4s are allowed, and as buildings get redeveloped you do see this. Generally that floor would either be let out as a separate unit, or the entire house would be turned into a duplex. Or, of course - if you have the $$$ you have a SFRH.

Right but you keep arguing for higher street walls in Toronto/Villiers and we generally allow 4s.

NYC buildings aren’t burning down left, right and center, so maybe it’s not as big an issue as you imagine? Also, FDNY is pretty aggressive: if you’re in the way they WILL destroy your property to get to the fire.

Oh, so FDNY will intentionally crash into that truck on the sidewalk and potentially injure people walking by............this is not a serious argument.

Finally, anecdotally, NYC has a different approach to fire houses than Toronto does: a lot more dispersed, smaller houses, so a single fire call scrambles units from 3,4 or 5 stations that all take different routes.

This is expensive.........what would you like? Fewer outdoor pools, less parks, (like NYC), and more homeless, or to double property taxes? Yes, I'm being a bit hyperbolic but I think your arguments are more than problematic.

Out of curiosity, how do you know it doesn’t meet accessibility requirements?

Accessibility requirement is 2.1M free of any encumbrance. No streetlight poles, no signs, no trees, no stairs, 2.1M of clear, level surface. You can measure that using google via aerial photos.