Toronto Fairview Mall Redevelopment Phase 1 | 180.2m | 52s | Cadillac Fairview | Hariri Pontarini

Yesterday:

Image.jpg
 
Supercharging isn't free, except for Tesla owners who bought before 2017, who also get free wifi. Everyone else has to pay, but it isn't nearly as much as gasoline.

It depends upon the ICE car in the comparison. Getting an extra 200 kilometers used to cost around 8-9 dollars. Then when gas rates went up so did the price at the Tesla superchargers so that the same 200 kilometers now costs about 15-16 dollars. Elon blames Measurements Canada. I blame Elon. And keep in mind that those 200 kilometers in the winter might actually be only 100 or so kilometers.
 
Storey changed from 58, 48 and 38-storey to 52, 45, 38-storey. Height changed from 197.40m, 162.80m & 132.80m to 180.20m, 154.40m & 133.40m. The total unit count was reduced from 1416 units to 1323 units. Finally, the total car parking increased 991 parking to 1062 parking.


AIC: https://www.toronto.ca/city-governm...nt/application-details/?id=5086946&pid=437880

New rendering updated. Taken from arch plan via Rezoning submission.

PLN - Architectural Plans - 3_Architectural Plans_Part 1 of 4_1800 Sheppard Avenue East-1.jpg


PLN - Architectural Plans - 3_Architectural Plans_Part 1 of 4_1800 Sheppard Avenue East-7.jpg


PLN - Architectural Plans - 3_Architectural Plans_Part 1 of 4_1800 Sheppard Avenue East-9.jpg


PLN - Architectural Plans - 3_Architectural Plans_Part 1 of 4_1800 Sheppard Avenue East-10.jpg
 
Last edited by a moderator:
This next bit, from the Planning Report addendum is quite interesting in that it shows the City's concern and the Applicant's response:

1695141818185.png

1695141851135.png


1695141899443.png


Pause for comment: I'm 100% with the City on both of the concerns expressed above and happy to see them thinking this way.

But I digress, the response from USI below:

1695141970902.png

1695141997802.png

1695142021821.png

1695142075464.png

1695142098152.png


1695142124961.png

1695142186161.png


There's still more of this in the Planning Report, but I'll stop there.

I really like the City's take here, very thoughtful, the right sorts of questions and ambitions.

CF's response is not entirely satisfactory. Too many excuses. Including a no-build clause that is, to my understanding, tied to one particular retailer........

Their imagining the retention of the mall, more or less as-is, in the longer term does not represent either the community's or CF's best interests as far as I'm concerned.

I would not quibble with keeping some sort of mall here, but not the current siting at layout.

If desired, I'd rather see it go to 3 storeys of retail, with a smaller footprint by about 1/3; and sited in such a way as to allow the Parkway Forest to Godstone connection; and full east-west public roads connecting that road to Don Mills.

I could see the mall existing on both sides of said road, and connecting both underneath and on top, while allowing the road though.

Insufficient imagination and ambition here.
 
Last edited:
Well................

CF has managed to get a Refusal Report on this one, to the next meeting of NYCC.


There's a whole bunch going on here...........

The City is very much on about the overall masterplan and the phasing thereof. A lot concern that there is not enough detail or certainty as how the site will function in various interim states over decade or longer build out.

Staff not liking the absence of an improved connection to the Don Mills Subway Station. They would like to see both a better above-grade connection, but also a PATH-like connection to the station underground.

Some specific language here on the ring road concept:

1707416459225.png


Staff also want to see a better developed concept of a road grid in the Masterplan with finer level of granularity:

1707416675375.png


As it pertains to the first ZBA buildings, the City has some thoughts:

1707416590825.png

1707416619489.png

The City is having none of what CF is selling on parkland:

1707416792668.png


My take: The City's concerns are right on point. The plan as envisioned is problematic to be charitable. The roads plan, the relationship to Don Mills Station and the parkland are all poorly thought out.

Needs a comprehensive re-think.
 
Sometimes I am confused by what is the optimal form of densification.
While it is nice to have an animated street with street-front retail, we are also shown examples of moving pedestrain activity away from arterials as ideal.
These examples are also from places in Europe where we seem to try to emulate.
I think the question is should arterials function as "main streets".
 

Back
Top