Toronto Tyndale Green | 80.29m | 24s | Collecdev-Markee | KPMB

[noreallyitsme]

Is that a protest sign for a different project..? Because TRIDEL has nothing to do with Tyndale Green site... right..?

Ya sorry this sign is for the other project. They had a sign for Tyndale too but took it down it looks like.

 

[noreallyitsme]

I bet they didn't but save this picture cuz it's amazing. Looks like a 5,000 sq ft infill project with 3 cars (only one Merecdes, though!) in the driveway.
Really says it all.
I almost feel sorry for these folks. Not only do they have to deal with an Inappropriate Development nearby, they also only had enough $ to do the stone facade and didn't have enough left in the savings account to carry it around the sides and back. A crying shame and surely a negative impact on the Character of the Neighbourhood.

Would it be too much for me to put my own sign up on my lawn that says “your shitty McMansions are INAPPROPRIATE for our neighbourhood”? Lol

 

[interchange42]

Would it be too much for me to put my own sign up on my lawn that says “your shitty McMansions are INAPPROPRIATE for our neighbourhood”? Lol

That would be entirely appropriate!

42

 

[HousingNowTO]

Nice Sunday drive around the neighbourhood today...

https://twitter.com/x/status/1454894746137153541

 

[Edward Skira]

Is that a protest sign for a different project..? Because TRIDEL has nothing to do with Tyndale Green site... right..?

Maybe recycling signs from the Royal Bayview/Tridel project up the street in Markham.

 

[noreallyitsme]

Few more

 

[bilked]

Anti-Tyndale Green signs making a cameo in this article about Canadian nimbys:

Angry neighbours block housing that Canada's cities badly need

 

[myself]

New docs up in AIC, submitted Jan 4th.

 

[daniel_kryz]

It's interesting how the planning department that Keesmaat used to lead made her own development proposal worse in terms of urban design.
No more natural trails, more segregated landscaping and the elimination of pedestrian mews, a very unnecessary roundabout, less landscaping islands, and many more issues that City Planning and Development Engineering forced upon the master plan. They're making it look more like a typical Toronto development and not the quality landscaping and built form that was originally promised. Yet another example of the city, not the developer, forcing upon us more of the same old boring Toronto.

(Northwest Landscape Plans, before and after)

(Entire property Landscape Plans, before and after)

Here in Toronto, we love to take everything good and hammer it down to complete mediocrity... but complete abominations of urbanism and design are rubber-stamped.
Please tell me if I'm wrong.

 

[Northern Light]

Credit to @myself and @daniel_kryz for making note of the recent changes here.

Let's see what's happened from the developer's perspective (Planning Report addendum)

 

[Northern Light]

Now let's look at the site organization in more detail, from the Urban Design brief addendum:

Now I'll enlarge the current one to make it easier for everyone to see in detail:

With that now out there.......

I know I previously expressed concerns over the site organization, and they have not gone away.

I totally appreciate and understand @daniel_kryz point.........but to me there's some fundamental stuff wrong here.

All due to respect to Ms.Keesmaat who I have every sense has her heart in the right place, there are things I just find goofy here.

1) Why are there 2 under sized public parks, instead of one fully useful one?

2) What the hell is with the shape on the primary, northern park? it feels very much like something done w/leftover land after everything else was sited.

3) I'm all for reducing car dependence, and I'm all for thin, well-dieted roadways. But I thought we learned a long time ago that roads should always be public (basically City policy); and that communities should not feel
like enclaves cut off from their surroundings.

To me, the amortization below would make far more sense:

One can play with it and move different things around.

But what I'm trying achieve is:

1) All buildings should face a public road

2) The park should be contiguous and functional

3) Most POPs are a worthless idea, nix it

4)Animate Bayview where practical.

****

An alternative to the above would be to shift the majority of park along my new suggested road, with a narrow, but visible invitation Bayview, thus allowing
a greater orientation to transit and greater animation of Bayview.

 

[HousingNowTO]

Always like to see the Units Increase on a revision --- and the 50/50 split on Affordable-Rental being retained... that's pretty rare on PRIVATE lands...

 

[Northern Light]

Always like to see the Units Increase on a revision --- and the 50/50 split on Affordable-Rental being retained... that's pretty rare on PRIVATE lands...

View attachment 376411

Possible to do better here by revising the site layout.

 

[AlexBozikovic]

Northern Light has well articulated the Toronto urban design consensus. Question: has that approach produced any good places in the past 30 years?

Markee are proposing something totally different here. I think it would work. There are car-free or car-light spaces between buildings, yes - but narrow, comfortably proportioned and defensible spaces, unlike the wide and vague ones typical of 1960s projects. With well-detailed architecture and landscape that (if they delivered) would be 10x more beautiful than the norm.

Downtown or at a place like Canada Square, “animate the public streets” is the right approach. In a suburban site like this, with limited pedestrian traffic, a more mazy and intimate set of spaces could be beautiful.

 

[Northern Light]

Northern Light has well articulated the Toronto urban design consensus. Question: has that approach produced any good places in the past 30 years?

There are lots of reasons we haven't achieved the kinds of spaces we would like in new developments, including road width, poorly configured/absent retail, all formula retail, architectural sameness, removal of all pre-existing trees and poor growing conditions for new ones etc etc.

I'm not sure I'd blame the shortcomings of new subdivisions or the like on the idea that there should be some public throughfare of some kind (by all means pedestrian-priority).

****

Let me try a different take, let's flip your statement above:

Have any great communities been created in the GTA based on a private roads, and exclusive landscapes in the last few decades in the GTA?

Markee were proposing something totally different here. I think it would have worked. There were car-free or car-light spaces between buildings, yes - but narrow, comfortably proportioned and defensible spaces, unlike the wide and vague ones typical of 1960s projects. With well-detailed architecture and landscape that (if they delivered) would be 10x more beautiful than the norm.

That is an extraordinary statement with, I would argue a paucity of evidence in support.

I'm certainly open to 10x more beautiful, but that would be a phenomenal achievement for which the evidence simply isn't there. I like Jen.

But I believe in trust, but verify.

This is also an extremely large site for concept testing.

Downtown or at a place like Canada Square, “animate the public streets” is the right approach. In a suburban site like this, with limited pedestrian traffic, a more mazy and intimate set of spaces could be beautiful.

By and large, maze-like spaces have been discredited from a public-safety and utility perspective (ease for visitors/delivery) etc.

Moreover, private paths are policed by private security who tend to be unfriendly to many of society's more vulnerable and certain minorities.