Toronto YZD | ?m | ?s | Northcrest Developments | KPMB

[DopeyFish]

Can anyone show me a neighborhood anywhere in the developed world with that sort of population density? Even the built up areas of Hong Kong are only 40,000/km2.

humber bay shores exists

it's going to have around 100k/km2 with an LRT station and a GO station and 2 roads, far less than downsview
edit: ok i may have been a bit off, but it will be roughly 52,000 condos/km2 so i dunno, 62.5-67.5k/km2?

so then i guess I'm asking for roughly 120k people on site?

 

[DirectionNorth]

humber bay shores exists

it's going to have around 100k/km2 with an LRT station and a GO station and 2 roads, far less than downsview
edit: ok i may have been a bit off, but it will be roughly 52,000 condos/km2 so i dunno, 62.5-67.5k/km2?

so then i guess I'm asking for roughly 120k people on site?

Sounds reasonable.

 

[Undead]

humber bay shores exists

it's going to have around 100k/km2 with an LRT station and a GO station and 2 roads, far less than downsview
edit: ok i may have been a bit off, but it will be roughly 52,000 condos/km2 so i dunno, 62.5-67.5k/km2?

so then i guess I'm asking for roughly 120k people on site?

88k, assuming 1.7 people per unit. IIRC, we're building well over 100k in the Entertainment District.

The question being: how will you ensure that amenities will be provided, and that we'll build places people want to live? The only way to get to 100k/km2 is shoebox condos, which is not somewhere people want to live.

Can anyone show me a neighborhood anywhere in the developed world with that sort of population density? Even the built up areas of Hong Kong are only 40,000/km2.

Edit: My research found that for residential area, the density was 100,000/km2. But this area will have jobs as well, and they do that by stuffing the poorest 5-10% into literal cages, and by having a median unit size of 430 square feet. Not a model we want to emulate.

Shoebox units are a very valid concern, but I think in Toronto's current market, a building of any height will be mostly shoeboxes.

 

[DirectionNorth]

88k, assuming 1.7 people per unit. IIRC, we're building well over 100k in the Entertainment District.

Is that a good thing?

Shoebox units are a very valid concern, but I think in Toronto's current market, a building of any height will be mostly shoeboxes.

I maintain the position that accepting bad outcomes as inevitable leads to feedback loops, and the whole thing becomes a self fulfilling prophecy.

You're right, but I think mid-rises would:
1. Set a precedent for Toronto. "We can build missing middle now!"
2. It would still create lots of density. In fact, at the current rate, there's going to be under 4000 population growth per year for 30 years. I'd like to see the timeline accelerated to 15 years, and yearly growth increased to 8000.

 

[Al Ski]

All wonderful visions and unicorns..
In the end, hedge funds and REITS will continue to build whatever max-profit crap they want (with minimal 'park' space and 'art' thingys) and everyone will be content to debate the application of spandrel and faux brick in the resulting tragedies.
Every. Single. Thread.
It's comical.
It's as if the bar has been set at ground level.

 

[abovegrade]

I am genuinely excited to have a grand boulevard that we can be proud of, if all of this works out. It could be a very cool place and help build our identity as a city.

 

[abovegrade]

The one advantage to going with super-density at Downsview is that there is next to no NIMBYs in the area. In a housing crisis, why not take advantage of areas that are ripe for this kind of development, and unlikely to start a neighborhood war?

But there have been countless NIMBY’s at the meetings, speaking against this at a lot of the meetings. Albeit not as deafening as 2150 lake shore

 

[Al Ski]

I am genuinely excited to have a grand boulevard that we can be proud of, if all of this works out. It could be a very cool place and help build our identity as a city.

A grand boulevard in Downsview? lol!

 

[Al Ski]

The one advantage to going with super-density at Downsview is that there is next to no NIMBYs in the area. In a housing crisis, why not take advantage of areas that are ripe for this kind of development, and unlikely to start a neighborhood war?

The very next post proved me correct!

Soopertawls!!

 

[allengeorge]

But there have been countless NIMBY’s at the meetings, speaking against this at a lot of the meetings. Albeit not as deafening as 2150 lake shore

I haven’t been to the meetings, but do see some of this come through in the survey comments.

That’s a big reason I (like some others above) would like to see dense-grid mid-rise at this location, because it breaks the current Toronto mindset of “tall and sprawl”. A lively non-tower neighborhood with amenities can be an example in future NIMBY rebuttals.

Let’s see what happens. Reading the article, and looking at what was promised for Downsview Park and housing development in the area vs. what we got (a sad strip of low-density townhomes and no retail) - I’m not the most optimistic. But one can hope!

 

[AlexBozikovic]

I’ve spoken to the developers and the design team, and they all seem totally committed to this vision.

The real danger is this scenario: they get the plan approved with the parks and density set. Then they sell, or take on development partners, and the urban design evolves into something more conventional, and worse: townhouses plus towers with value-engineered parks and wide streets. Because that’s what the city understands and will approve.

What’s happening to East Harbour right now is a similar story.

 

[allengeorge]

Because that’s what the city understands and will approve.

What’s happening to East Harbour right now is a similar story.

It’s really unfortunate that the city is the one setting the roadblocks! That this is happening in East Harbour today makes me even less optimistic about this plan

 

[daniel_kryz]

It’s really unfortunate that the city is the one setting the roadblocks! That this is happening in East Harbour today makes me even less optimistic about this plan

How is the city setting up roadblocks? I'm not very satisfied with the East Harbour vision, but is it the city's fault? Does it have anything to do with planning policy, or is this Cadillac Fairview's fault?

 

[allengeorge]

How is the city setting up roadblocks? I'm not very satisfied with the East Harbour vision, but is it the city's fault? Does it have anything to do with planning policy, or is this Cadillac Fairview's fault?

This was in response to the following quote (emphasis mine):

Then they sell, or take on development partners, and the urban design evolves into something more conventional, and worse: townhouses plus towers with value-engineered parks and wide streets. Because that’s what the city understands and will approve.

 

[daniel_kryz]

This was in response to the following quote (emphasis mine):

I understand what you mean about being disappointed because developers don't give us what they promised. My question is what does the city have to do with this? Is it insufficient planning policy, or a laissez-faire approach during the approvals process? What exactly are you talking about?