Toronto id8 Downsview | ?m | ?s | Northcrest Developments | KPMB

The Preservationist said:
Aren't there 3 subway stations within a 15 minute walk for the Bombardier Downsview lands? (once the runway and fences removed).
Click to expand...

The short answer to that is 'No' if referencing the entire site. Assuming a typical walking pace of 4km/ph, 15 minutes means within 1km of a station:

1658352167356.png


The above, is the distance from the site interior to Sheppard West Stn. Below, we'll look at Wilson:

1658352236785.png


To be fair, I'm looking at the furthest possible distances (or pretty close) that one might have to walk.

But if you look at the axis above you'd see the what is probably the median walk point is still ~15M depending on the local road network.

I think that's ok, subject to great walking and cycling conditions, but there is certainly a question of how bus service will serve the new community and shorten those walks for some.

There is a proposal to put Dufferin through, sort of......(it would be an extension of Dufferin from the south but would not directly meet the current Dufferin in the north. )

It's not yet clear, I don't think, how the Dufferin bus would be routed/branched, whether it would provide a convenient link to one or more stations, and if not, whether a different/new route would serve that purpose. (though perhaps that's in the latest plans and I haven't read those yet!)
 
From the centre of the development it's about 1.8km to Wilson and 2km to Downsview Park in a straight line, I'm not sure what the future plans are as far as being able to cross the airport, but Sheppard West is about 1.6km away. So anywhere from 15-30 minutes if you walk in a straight line
 
Northern Light said:
The short answer to that is 'No' if referencing the entire site. Assuming a typical walking pace of 4km/ph, 15 minutes means within 1km of a station:

View attachment 414925

The above, is the distance from the site interior to Sheppard West Stn. Below, we'll look at Wilson:

View attachment 414926

To be fair, I'm looking at the furthest possible distances (or pretty close) that one might have to walk.

But if you look at the axis above you'd see the what is probably the median walk point is still ~15M depending on the local road network.

I think that's ok, subject to great walking and cycling conditions, but there is certainly a question of how bus service will serve the new community and shorten those walks for some.

There is a proposal to put Dufferin through, sort of......(it would be an extension of Dufferin from the south but would not directly meet the current Dufferin in the north. )

It's not yet clear, I don't think, how the Dufferin bus would be routed/branched, whether it would provide a convenient link to one or more stations, and if not, whether a different/new route would serve that purpose. (though perhaps that's in the latest plans and I haven't read those yet!)
Click to expand...
The master plan identifies a bus-only road running from Wilson to the development area of Phase 1 for buses to quickly access it, as well as a preliminary TTC bus route map identifying a bus route operating through the site from Wilson to Downsview Park stations. I would imagine an active transportation connection would go in tandem with the bus road to allow for people to cycle / walk from Wilson Station as well.
 
innsertnamehere said:
The master plan identifies a bus-only road running from Wilson to the development area of Phase 1 for buses to quickly access it, as well as a preliminary TTC bus route map identifying a bus route operating through the site from Wilson to Downsview Park stations. I would imagine an active transportation connection would go in tandem with the bus road to allow for people to cycle / walk from Wilson Station as well.
Click to expand...

Excellent contribution! Thanks!
 
Soviet, and inhuman, is a bit hyperbolic, but this has the potential to repeat a few of the Canary district mistakes. Even if it does, it's still emulating a solid, though suboptimal neighbourhood. All they need to do is be a bit more bold with ground coverage and narrower right of ways to help create intimacy and a finer grain. The pedestrian only area in the renderings looks like a step in the right direction. It's just difficult to judge based on these renderings so I'll have to reserve any judgement for the time being
 
goodcitywhenfinished said:
Is this not "European style density" being proposed?
Click to expand...
European style density is denser, smaller lot sizes, and skinnier streets
Northern Light said:
One can like/dislike the architecture/planning proposed here, that's fair enough; but.....Soviet? I'm assuming you mean 'Commie Blocks'........of which, prior to the recent, tragic war, there were few better examples than Kharkiv in Ukraine.

That being said, I don't see anything in the Northcrest proposal that looks like this:
Click to expand...
There are good and bad examples of soviet buildings and soviet planning. If you look at Nowa Huta in Krakow, for instance, or other examples from Russia, they aren't so bad, but IMO not what we should be aiming for.

Anyways, what I meant to compare was the corporate (or governmental), top down approach to building a neighbourhood where you have one giant company or government body masterplanning a community for some many people to live in. These masterplanned communities often miss the intangible vitality that we all love in great neighbourhoods that develop organically like Kensington market, Greenwich village, and many others. There seem to be some new developments that are trying to create places that are just as interesting, like Mirvish Village, but i dont think that this development is one of them. I will say though that it's nice that some of the architecture uses some warm materials, at least in the renderings
 
clarkburglar said:
European style density is denser, smaller lot sizes, and skinnier streets

There are good and bad examples of soviet buildings and soviet planning. If you look at Nowa Huta in Krakow, for instance, or other examples from Russia, they aren't so bad, but IMO not what we should be aiming for.

Anyways, what I meant to compare was the corporate (or governmental), top down approach to building a neighbourhood where you have one giant company or government body masterplanning a community for some many people to live in. These masterplanned communities often miss the intangible vitality that we all love in great neighbourhoods that develop organically like Kensington market, Greenwich village, and many others. There seem to be some new developments that are trying to create places that are just as interesting, like Mirvish Village, but i dont think that this development is one of them. I will say though that it's nice that some of the architecture uses some warm materials, at least in the renderings
Click to expand...
I completely disagree, I think this is the approach we need. A mass of Individual development applications in Toronto mostly means ugly glass box high-rises and that is it. No emphasis really on building something cohesive. With masterplans and sometimes government orgs, we get more civic-oriented and ambitious developments. Really it should be city hall in charge of these kinds of things, but really it just appears that the city approves individual apps rather than takes the initiative. This site really is emphasising public spaces, creativity and an active street life/walkability that Toronto hasn't seen in a long time. I don't see any better alternative right now - Canada lands corp was involved in Old Port Montreal which turned out quite amazing and the architects and urban designers on this project seem to have more of a 'worldly' perspective.

The site is also grounded in a large film hub and spaces for arts/culture to thrive in the hangars which will create kind of an entrepreneurial and attractive place to visit. The only threat but also maybe even something helpful is how far away it is to downtown Toronto. Perhaps Downsview will become unique time will tell.
 
I would note here that I appreciate both of the posts above, even though they seem to be in contradiction........

I get what both are saying.

Often, when we get individual developments, they vary widely in quality, but many skew to the lesser end dis-proportionately...........

Likewise it can be said that some masterplanned communities achieve the same, but on a grand scale........so that a mistake that might be forgettable as a one-off or even interesting as a one-off
becomes toxic when repeated endlesslessly over several hectares (or even over a hundred)

As I noted in the 2150 Lake Shore thread.........it takes a client (or clients) who are willing to hire talented and passionate designers/planners/architects who have a good understanding of the need for variation, with coordination. Further they must provide those hires with reasonable budget and reasonable flexibility.

One can absolutely achieve some of that by masterplanning streets and zoning but not the detailed footprint or look of every building and having those come through different proponents or architects.

But it is very hard to do, on a large site, once assembled.

The key is really outcome, not process...........don't be sterile, don't be dull, don't be cold, do be bold........incorporate flavour and human-scale. If you can do that with one master-planner and architect, Yay you!

If you can't, please don't try!
 
Last edited:
I would say this project and community is going to take double the projected timeline. Like you said, there are missing quite a few pieces before the holistic development is ready.
 
old boy said:
What made De Havilland change their mind ? How many jobs go with this decision ? Doug Ford, where are you ?
Click to expand...
Downstream effects of Ontario's affordability crisis, much easier to attract global aerospace talent to a place where you can buy a 5 bedroom house for $500,000 CAD. Cheaper industrial land, huge talent pool of industrial expertise, and decent aerospace talent in the area (Viking Aircraft).
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top