Toronto Gerrard-Carlaw North | ?m | ?s | Choice Properties | Hariri Pontarini

Undead said:
Way too much parking.
Click to expand...

Hmm.

Ratio is ~0.4

That's not horrific.

Lower would be better, I'm quite happy to agree.

But at least it's on the right side of 0.5!

I think 0.2 would be great........I'd settle for 0.3
 
Northern Light said:
Park configuration is bizarre.

But as configured you can't put a sports field on it.

In order to create a usable park............we really need guidelines. Not rules! Flexibility is important...........but the guidelines should say, a park must be 150m wide by 125M long, minimum for each dimension.

That's what creates room for a soccer pitch, plus adjacent pathways.
Click to expand...
Honestly, don't say "Soccer Pitch" out-loud at any of these TOC meetings...

beachmetro.com

‘NIMBY-ism at its worst’ turfs plan for East End soccer field upgrade – Beach Metro Community News

What was to be $2 million dollar FIFA-grade upgrade to the St. Patrick Catholic Secondary School soccer field has been turfed, following public opposition that a spokesperson for the Toronto Catholic District School Board (TCDSB) calls “NIMBY-ism at its worst.” Ryerson University planned to...
beachmetro.com beachmetro.com
 
HousingNowTO said:
Honestly, don't say "Soccer Pitch" out-loud at any of these TOC meetings...

beachmetro.com

‘NIMBY-ism at its worst’ turfs plan for East End soccer field upgrade – Beach Metro Community News

What was to be $2 million dollar FIFA-grade upgrade to the St. Patrick Catholic Secondary School soccer field has been turfed, following public opposition that a spokesperson for the Toronto Catholic District School Board (TCDSB) calls “NIMBY-ism at its worst.” Ryerson University planned to...
beachmetro.com beachmetro.com
Click to expand...

A curiosity though; it's the very shortage of soccer pitches that creates the problem of inordinately high usage, long-distance car traffic and late usage (stadium lights) at those facilities that remain.

If the number of a facilities was closer to demand level; and located closer to where demand originates as well as to public transport, the parking/traffic issue would be far less consequential.

The very involvement of TMU/Ryerson here signals the problem.......it says to the locals that people from 6km away will be regular users of the facility.

That's not a selling feature.

Of course, there are always home/away teams in any kind of league play..........but when a primary user is 30M+ from the community you're going to all sorts of aggravation back.

****

There is, of course, an analogy here to the housing file.

You need more shelters, because there's a lack of affordable housing.

You need more density on any given affordable housing site because there are too few of them.

The impact on the community is higher as a result, and the pushback greater.
 
Yeah I feel the same about the new road - it's taking up way too much space. Without, the park could potentially be 28% of the site which is much better. Considering that they are getting rid of the Gerrard St. park, it'd be nice to have a bigger park to replace it. It's just so bizarre, so future residents would have to cross (jaywalk) across the road to use the park. Seriously, why do we need that new road? It's pretty heavy residential area, and there's already the bus. They want people to drive and park there and then take the subway? I can't believe I'm getting hung up on that new road. :D
 
tripwire said:
Yeah I feel the same about the new road - it's taking up way too much space. Without, the park could potentially be 28% of the site which is much better. Considering that they are getting rid of the Gerrard St. park, it'd be nice to have a bigger park to replace it. It's just so bizarre, so future residents would have to cross (jaywalk) across the road to use the park. Seriously, why do we need that new road? It's pretty heavy residential area, and there's already the bus. They want people to drive and park there and then take the subway? I can't believe I'm getting hung up on that new road. :D
Click to expand...
Keep in mind there will be a new grocery store as well as other services in the base of the three towers, so the new road with the traffic light, will be need as an access point to prevent further congestion on Carlaw north of Gerrard.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Well there's already an existing plaza with a grocery store in the area. I think the new road is more for the residential towers and an alternate access(?) to the station. Still don't like it though.
 
Isn't there an approval in place, for a residential tower at 354 Pape (currently the Metro Building Supply site)?
 
Last edited:
Good point @tripwire. What is the street actually accomplishing? I assume the answer is that per city policy 1) the buildings need to have street addresses, and 2) you can’t put high-rise next to the houses.

Those are basically arbitrary.

Seems like, if you massed the density along Carlaw in two separate buildings, you’d have a better result all around.
 
AlexBozikovic said:
Good point @tripwire. What is the street actually accomplishing? I assume the answer is that per city policy 1) the buildings need to have street addresses, and 2) you can’t put high-rise next to the houses.

Those are basically arbitrary.

Seems like, if you massed the density along Carlaw in two separate buildings, you’d have a better result all around.
Click to expand...

You could also mass it at the north end, you simply need to create the illusion of low-scale, and have a decent set-back. Sure, it will cast shade on the front of the homes, although, that need not be oppressive with some well thought out orientation/gaps; but what that does is allow nearly unrestricted sun at all times of the day for the park to the south, in a single, consolidated block.

In the absence of other changes there will be a requirement for some new E-W road capacity with redevelopment, due to the current northern street being only one lane each way, with the private drive through the current plaza absorbing some level of traffic.
But that can be a straight-up road widening at north end.........

OR

You cut the lane capacity on Carlaw from 4 lanes to 2, and make sure that is reflected in

a) Lower parking on site here, including for retail
b) Cycle Tracks on Carlaw
c) Enhanced N-S bus service/stops&shelters

Any which way you cut it, this space creates less useful, more stranded park space in the current proposed arrangement than it ought to.
 
Last edited:
A note here about project timing and groceries.

Some expression from the Community Engagement session about the length of absence of No Frills from the Community.

Apparently we're looking at a 2024 timeline for closure and the new TOC community would not begin construction til 2030, with presumably an earliest possible occupancy date in the 2033/34 range; suggesting 10 years w/o that supermarket on site.

****

This in turn raises the question of whether shifting the massing to the north, as I suggested might plausibly allow the new TOC to be built in parallel to the OL rather than sequentially after, with only the new park waiting to 2030 and being delivered in 2031/32.

There is no other site in the immediate area suited to a relo of the existing store (obviously one could build on the Gerrard Square parking lot, but I expect Food Basics might find that objectionable.
 
Last edited:
Direct link to IO page noted above:

Gerrard-Carlaw North

engagegerrardcarlawnorth.ca engagegerrardcarlawnorth.ca

Additional Renders not yet posted:

1670283909893.png


1670283998197.png


Ok....now I'm getting ticked..............I see something I wasn't previously aware of, they not only want to site the park in such a way as to manage it utility, they want to preclude any 100-year old trees on it, ever.

It's proposed to be stratified!

This expressly contradicts City Parks policy.

1670284119514.png


Hmmm, I don't see anything under the park in the Arch. Plans.............very odd; maybe I'm blind......

Ah.........interesting.......it's not stratified for any sort of building/parking.........but for Geo-Thermal! Ok......I'm openminded on this but want to see the schematic layout:

1670284821221.png


***

In the Planning Rationale Report, we learn that the park is imagined as having 2 8-storey midrises to the north, opposite the current SFH.

1670284533916.png


Stats for the site:

1670284641279.png


That makes the parking ratio (residential only) 0.35; that is too high here.


Lots more in there, but it's time to begin preparing dinner!
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top