Toronto 99 Atlantic Avenue | ?m | 8s | Kevric | WZMH

In this case the 'developer' and the 'owner' are one and the same.

Still, with all the guidelines, by-laws, secondary plans, OPs, SASPs, studies, etc., it's not as if it's 'easy density, easy money'. You've really got to fight for every square metre, so it's really no surprise that no one wants to give back at grade out of a sense of charity to the City.
 
The post at the bottom of page 6 suggests that the best part of this project is hidden or obscured. :(
 
tight sidewalks are a problem throughout all of LV, with many areas being given over to parking. IMO a lot of the north south streets in LV should be pedestrianized as the area becomes more developed, with the ability to close off vehicle access for events or during different times of the week.

I’m curious to see how the little park ends up looking beside scotiabank. The owners have done a relatively good job of landscaping the existing heritage building which has done a lot for improving the street presence.
 
ProjectEnd said:
In this case the 'developer' and the 'owner' are one and the same.

Still, with all the guidelines, by-laws, secondary plans, OPs, SASPs, studies, etc., it's not as if it's 'easy density, easy money'. You've really got to fight for every square metre, so it's really no surprise that no one wants to give back at grade out of a sense of charity to the City.
Click to expand...

I get that, but it still seems short sighted not to do your part towards ensuring that the infrastructure can support the business vitality you want from your commercial property. Liberty Village is a pedestrian-oriented neighbourhood. If you don't support the pedestrian infrastructure, it limits the value of all of the properties in the area relative to commercial districts with better pedestrian infrastructure like the Financial District.
 
If the business support comes from pedestrians (I agree, it does), it's incumbent on the City to reduce lanes and ROWs to accommodate larger sidewalks. I endorse this approach without reserve. Likewise, if the city will grant extra floors to help accommodate an increased setback or POPS at grade, I'd endorse that too.

Problem is, the City wants to do neither of these things, so why should developers bear all of the strain?
 
^Exactly, it's the city's piss pour planning around Liberty Village that has led to the current pedestrian and overall traffic flow issues. There's no doubt that the sidewalks in the area should be much wider than they currently are, and the overall street network needs to be improved. Heck there are some places in the neighborhood where sidewalks are basically an afterthought.

The city bungled up the opportunity and now there's very little that can be done to rectify the issues.
 
Amare said:
^Exactly, it's the city's piss pour planning around Liberty Village that has led to the current pedestrian and overall traffic flow issues. There's no doubt that the sidewalks in the area should be much wider than they currently are, and the overall street network needs to be improved. Heck there are some places in the neighborhood where sidewalks are basically an afterthought.

The city bungled up the opportunity and now there's very little that can be done to rectify the issues.
Click to expand...

What happened to all this?
...,years and years and study after study and nothing? https://www.toronto.ca/community-pe...tations/infrastructure-projects/libertynewst/

City of Toronto Moves to Build New Street in Liberty Village
urbantoronto.ca

City of Toronto Moves to Build New Street in Liberty Village | UrbanToronto

The City of Toronto has endorsed an Environmental Assessment (EA) to construct a new east-west street at the southern terminus of Liberty Village, running from Dufferin to Strachan.
urbantoronto.ca urbantoronto.ca
 
The new street has been held up by private land owners who do not want to 'donate' the southernmost parts of their land. In that case, it's not entirely fair to blame the City.
 
ProjectEnd said:
If the business support comes from pedestrians (I agree, it does), it's incumbent on the City to reduce lanes and ROWs to accommodate larger sidewalks. I endorse this approach without reserve. Likewise, if the city will grant extra floors to help accommodate an increased setback or POPS at grade, I'd endorse that too.

Problem is, the City wants to do neither of these things, so why should developers bear all of the strain?
Click to expand...

They're the ones whose buildings are generating the pedestrian traffic. They need people to be able to reach their buildings. Moreover, the city can just raise their taxes to pay for the infrastructure upgrades. Perhaps they can address the problem more efficiently by widening the sidewalk slightly rather than relying on the city to reconstruct the entire street.
 
junctionist said:
They're the ones whose buildings are generating the pedestrian traffic. They need people to be able to reach their buildings. Moreover, the city can just raise their taxes to pay for the infrastructure upgrades. Perhaps they can address the problem more efficiently by widening the sidewalk slightly rather than relying on the city to reconstruct the entire street.
Click to expand...
You seem to be advocating for my second idea but without the necessary 'give back' to make up the lost density, no?
 
ProjectEnd said:
You seem to be advocating for my second idea but without the necessary 'give back' to make up the lost density, no?
Click to expand...

It's already an 8-storey building in a neighbourhood with streets laid out for 2-4 storey buildings in the 19th century. It seems like they're already getting double or four times the regular density without giving anything back for the sidewalk.
 
ProjectEnd said:
You seem to be advocating for my second idea but without the necessary 'give back' to make up the lost density, no?
Click to expand...
It's not "lost" density if it is accounted for in the initial pro-forma. Requiring reasonable sidewalk widths is no different than requiring a road widening or placing a maximum height. It simply needs to be accounted for at project outset when determining land value.
 
junctionist said:
It's already an 8-storey building in a neighbourhood with streets laid out for 2-4 storey buildings in the 19th century. It seems like they're already getting double or four times the regular density without giving anything back for the sidewalk.
Click to expand...
Does it also have land values and planning regulations from the 19th century too?
innsertnamehere said:
It's not "lost" density if it is accounted for in the initial pro-forma. Requiring reasonable sidewalk widths is no different than requiring a road widening or placing a maximum height. It simply needs to be accounted for at project outset when determining land value.
Click to expand...
A proforma is never a set thing. It is almost always in flux, especially when a project is in its entitlements phase. It's best to think of it as an 'if this, then this' calculator - you input scenarios based on known and assumed variables and it will tell you the likely result.
 
ProjectEnd said:
Does it also have land values and planning regulations from the 19th century too?
Click to expand...

Planning regulations are in fact more pedestrian and transit-focused, so it's more 19th century than, say, outer Brampton. As to land values, they seem to reflect some degree of speculation nowadays. The market isn't necessarily rational. What's rational is having wider sidewalks where the density and pedestrian traffic requires them.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top