Riverside Square | 69m | 20s | Streetcar | RAW Design

torontologist

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Dec 9, 2013
Messages
526
Reaction score
400
Location
Annex
I disagree - there may be some parks in the area, but only Jimmie Simpson is actually on Queen, and that's a ways away.

If Queen/Broadview is going to have this much development around it, having a big public square on Queen is a good idea
Joel Weeks Park is literally on the other side of the Broadview Hotel. It's quite nice and surprisingly spacious. It even has a dog park.

This public square is going to be a loitering place and not a useable public space. Its only purpose is to draw people further in to the development. The space and money would be better used to put market units here along with affordable units to replace what was lost with the Broadview Hotel. That would actually serve the community.
 

interchange42

Administrator
Staff member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
22,572
Reaction score
17,760
Location
by the Humber
I liked the streetwall of the original design better :/

This area has enough parks.
I disagree - there may be some parks in the area, but only Jimmie Simpson is actually on Queen, and that's a ways away.

If Queen/Broadview is going to have this much development around it, having a big public square on Queen is a good idea
Joel Weeks Park is literally on the other side of the Broadview Hotel. It's quite nice and surprisingly spacious. It even has a dog park.

This public square is going to be a loitering place and not a useable public space. Its only purpose is to draw people further in to the development. The space and money would be better used to put market units here along with affordable units to replace what was lost with the Broadview Hotel. That would actually serve the community.
Sorry, I don't get the "loitering space" comment. I agree with T-Bor. To my mind, Toronto has nowhere near enough public squares on main streets, and I don't see how this one won't be "useable public space". With retail (a café) on the south side of it, there's a reason for people to sit along one edge… and a couple of people are often enough to start to draw a small crowd to socialize. It's a completely different dynamic that happens in these squares than from what you get at Joel Weeks Park which feels tucked-in-behind.
With only occasional chances to add new public squares to Toronto streets, I'm very happy that the option is being exercised in this instance.

42
 

AndreaPalladio

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 24, 2007
Messages
2,748
Reaction score
455
When I left the office yesterday there were a lot of people loitering in Nathan Philips Square. They were watching TV! The horror, the horror. They shouldn't have designed that space to draw people in.
 

greenleaf

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
May 16, 2007
Messages
2,495
Reaction score
986
Location
Downtown
This area will continue to get more dense. The more parks, the better, always.

The question is, will this be a public park (yes please) or will it be a POPs (ugh, only if it has to be).

I like this design much better with the public space aligned with where more of the public will be. It's nice to have that open space dynamic on Queen.
 

interchange42

Administrator
Staff member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
22,572
Reaction score
17,760
Location
by the Humber
I'm not an automatic ugh on a POPS here. Sure it violates the principle of a public space being in public hands, but the lack of funding of parks in this city makes me think that placing the upkeep in the hands of the adjacent condo might mean that it will remain well maintained: condos don't want their property values dropping because of poorly kept up public realm right outside their doors.

That said, it simply shouldn't happen this way, and Toronto's public realm should be funded well enough that we needn't even consider POPS in most cases.

In this particular case I am betting that this won't be a POPS. Every development of any size owes either parkland or money in lieu to the City, and here it seems they'll be handing over parkland.

Finally, there are cases where POPS, owing on occasion to the layout of the property, make more sense than handing parkland over to the City. I am not against all POPS on principle, and they certainly make sense for many already-built developments after-the-fact.

42
 

torontologist

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Dec 9, 2013
Messages
526
Reaction score
400
Location
Annex
When I left the office yesterday there were a lot of people loitering in Nathan Philips Square. They were watching TV! The horror, the horror. They shouldn't have designed that space to draw people in.
Haha, as if the proposed POPS is anywhere in the same league as NPS. Apples and oranges.

You all can snark as much as you want, but this isn't Siena. Small spaces like this don't work in Toronto. Take a look at all of the gloriously deserted "courtyard" spaces on Bay Street. And you think there is enough foot traffic east of the Don to justify one here? :rolleyes::D

My primary point is that the space would be better used for an organized community purpose (especially one improving social equity, considering the neighbourhood).
 

Lenser

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Dec 7, 2011
Messages
2,562
Reaction score
2,039
Location
Leslieville
I live east of the Don, along the Queen St. axis. Foot traffic is steadily building - has been over the past several years. This development, in combination with more mid-rise on Queen further east and the intensification along Carlaw, are already making for a livelier streetscape. More people residing in the area makes for more a more liveable neighbourhood. I say bring it on and we'll see how well (or how poorly) the public space will work.
 

ChesterCopperpot

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jul 4, 2012
Messages
3,515
Reaction score
3,907
Location
Toronto
Demolition has begun here

 

greenleaf

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
May 16, 2007
Messages
2,495
Reaction score
986
Location
Downtown
These are not part of the development as far as I know (based on the map on the database page), but I am putting these here as I wonder if there is another phase in the works.


635 Queen St E (no to designation):
This report recommends that City Council receive the heritage evaluation of the property at 635 Queen Street East. The report concludes that this property should not be included on the City of Toronto Heritage Register or designated under Part IV, Section 29 of the Ontario Heritage Act. The property contains a three-storey brick warehouse building completed in 1950 and located on the south side of Queen Street East between the East Don Roadway and Broadview Avenue.


639, 641, 643, 651, 653 and 655 Queen Street East (yes to designation):
This report will recommend that City Council state its intention to designate the properties at 639, 641, 643, 651, 653 and 655 Queen Street East under Part IV, Section 29 of the Ontario Heritage Act.

This report will be completed and made available prior to the January 21, 2016 meeting of the Toronto Preservation Board.


685 Queen St E (yes to designation):
This report recommends that City Council include the property at 685 Queen Street East on the City of Toronto Heritage Register. The property contains the Dr. John B. Fraser house, a two-and-a-half storey, brick-clad, hipped-roofed house-form building completed in 1904 and located on the south side of Queen Street East between the East Don Roadway and Broadview Avenue.

At its meeting of November 10, 2015, Toronto and East York Community Council requested that the Senior Manager, Heritage Preservation Services report on the results of an evaluation of the cultural heritage value of these properties and provide recommendation for their inclusion on the City's Heritage Register. Following research and evaluation, staff have determined that the property at 685 Queen Street East meets Ontario Regulation 9/06, the provincial criteria prescribed for municipal designation under the Ontario Heritage Act that is also used by the City when evaluating properties for inclusion on the Heritage Register.
 

Top