Toronto Lower Don Lands Redevelopment | ?m | ?s | Waterfront Toronto

[smably]

This is the meat of the presentation, three massing options.

First up, the original massing from 2017:

Option 1, concentrating density along the north side of the island:

Option 2, density on the west side of the island:

Option 3, density through the centre of the island:

 

[max]

I know it's just a rendering so it doesn't mean it's been decided, but I can't help being a bit sad that the transit bridges at South Cherry & Commissioners are shown as not matching their siblings and are just plain.

 

[hawc]

Interesting. So Villiers Island will be less like a new High Park and more like the next Liberty Village/CityPlace.

 

[kotsy]

Interesting. So Villiers Island will be less like a new High Park and more like the next Liberty Village/CityPlace.

Disappointing but appropriate in the age of a housing crisis

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

It doesn't feel that bad - and I prefer aligning the density to Keating to sort of set up a gradation from artificial to natural*. Shifting the density there also that that you can probably concentrate retail along that area as well - and Keating channel would serve as a nice promenade space for it. I would suggest adding additional pedestrian bridges to link everything up.

AoD

 

[Northern Light]

I know some of you will wince, but I cannot support this kind of density here; I think it's utterly, contemptibly unreasonable.

Here's the thing, at 6,000 housing units x 1.88 people per unit (the common calculation currently being used for similar development), you get 11,280 people, spread over 22 ha, that's 0.22km2

When you express that as population per km2 we're talking 51,272, that would be among the very densest developments on the entire planet.

That is 67% denser than St Jamestown. Or 4x times as dense as Liberty Village (I hear mouths dropping)

~8,000 people in ~0.6km2; so 27% fewer people over more than 2.5x the land area in LV.

I don't think I would support that at Yonge and Bloor, I certainly can't support it where this no subway line. Don't Ontario Line me, a ~750m (11minute) walk to a subway (from Commissioners) is simply too much when one considers real world utility.

The standard is not how many people will find this reasonable on a sunny, mild day in late May; it's how many will find it reasonable on a cold day in January, or stiflingly humid one in July.

****

We cannot try to solve a housing crisis on one block of land, by building to a density that would baffle any planner anywhere else on earth.

I will add, the development facing Lake Shore is already suggestive of repeating the past mistake of a wall of condos blocking off the view of the Lake for millions. (I'm not defending any one's view from a condo, but rather everyone's view from the public realm)

I don't wish to engage in hyperbole, but this is potentially very bad. There's no plan for a High School here, the employment and retail plans don't support this type of density and the parks will quickly be over-run.

You can't just keep piling people on people w/o the supporting infrastructure. Sigh.

 

[hawc]

Disappointing but appropriate in the age of a housing crisis

We won't build our way out of a housing crisis with expensive condos. We need to fix the buying side of things (foreign ownership, one owner multiple units, airbnb) this will do NOTHING to fix our current affordability crisis.

 

[innsertnamehere]

I mean, what? The wider Portlands is far more than 22 hectares.

I mean, just look at those graphics. Even at the increased densities this is far from super high density. Certianly far below that of Yonge-Bloor....

Your LV comparison seems dramatic but the land area you used includes the massive, low density employment lands east of Atlantic which actually makes up the majority of the Liberty Village area and which house exactly 0 people, massively diluting your density calculations. The actual area of LV that has residential uses is less than 15 hectares and is likely far, far denser than what is shown above.

No individual development block here looks to be above 5-6 FSI, hardly super agressive. The privately-initiated application at 309 Cherry has an FSI of 5.9, and will likely be the highest density block in the area..

One Bloor W just got approved at 29 FSI! 5.9 is paltry compared to that!

The Graphics above illustrate still a mostly mid-rise development with a scattering of ~10 high-rise residential towers. That's hardly "stifling", and well below many new development areas throughout the city and even the GTA. Not sure where you are coming from here.

 

[Northern Light]

I mean, what? The wider Portlands is far more than 22 hectares.

I mean, just look at those graphics. Even at the increased densities this is far from super high density. Certianly far below that of Yonge-Bloor....

That's the size of Villiers Island. I don't get the idea that we just gob a few hundred extra hectares on to lower the density.

Liberty Village's density would be a lot lower if we added the CNE site to it.

Why don't we just add the entire Don Valley to St.Jamestown?

This is a discrete block of land, bounded by water on 4 sides (hence 'Island') The density calculation I offer is reasonable and fair. This site is not sitting at the intersection of Lines 1 and 2.

The comparisons I made to Liberty Village and St.Jamestown are on point, and their density is calculated in the same way.

 

[AlexBozikovic]

among the very densest developments on the entire planet

Well, LOL. It’s comparable to the Upper West Side of Manhattan, which 1) is one of the most desirable neighbourhoods in the world, and 2) is much larger.

This would be a tiny island of density in an ocean of parks and lake.

If I stand next to Elon Musk, we are, on average, very rich.

 

[innsertnamehere]

That's the size of Villiers Island. I don't get the idea that we just gob a few hundred extra hectares on to lower the density.

Liberty Village's density would be a lot lower if we added the CNE site to it.

Why don't we just add the entire Don Valley to St.Jamestown?

This is a discrete block of land, bounded by water on 4 sides (hence 'Island') The density calculation I offer is reasonable and fair. This site is not sitting at the intersection of Lines 1 and 2.

The comparisons I made to Liberty Village and St.Jamestown are on point, and their density is calculated in the same way.

The area east of Atlantic in LV, which is about 2/3 of the area you measured, and houses exactly 0 people, does not strike me as particularly fair.

Villiers Island will be literally surrounded by a massive public park which will dilute the perceived density on the actual development blocks - and besides, as I already mentioned, even those actual development blocks are far from overly dense. The densest block is only around 5.9 FSI.. not low density for sure, but not particularly dense, and most certianly very, very, very far from the "Densest place ion the planet". I mean I could think of a dozen areas in the GTA alone which are being planned or are already at far higher densities than that.

6,000 units in 22 hectares would be 272 units a hectare. That is just really, really not super dense at all. You can go just down the waterfront to Sugar Wharf where Menkes is building 5,000 units on 2 hectares of land to see what I am talking about.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

In the larger context - this is mostly public land, and we have a housing shortage that need to be dealt with. What's been proposed is reasonable considering these factors,, plus the fact that the site is proximate to the urban core.

I'd rather the density happens here instead of eating into say the Greenbelt.

AoD

 

[smably]

The original 2017 plan was for 4800 housing units. The new plans would be for somewhere between 6000 and 7000 units. Let's come in somewhere in the middle and say 6500. So 1700 new units or about 3200 more people who are able to live in this neighbourhood.

WT has a minimum target of 20% affordable housing here, but they're hoping to push it closer to 30%. Let's be conservative and say they hit 25%. This means 425 new affordable housing units, or affordable housing for over 900 people. But without the extra density and development revenue, we would likely be getting the minimum 20% affordable housing across the site, so we're actually getting, say, 650 new affordable units, or affordable housing for 1200+ people, living in a brand new neighbourhood on the water, surrounded by parkland.

That sounds like a pretty good deal to me.

 

[Northern Light]

Well, LOL. It’s comparable to the Upper West Side of Manhattan, which 1) is one of the most desirable neighbourhoods in the world, and 2) is much larger.

Google says the density of the Upper West Side of Manhattan is 44,000perkm2, or 7,000 lower than this proposal (at the low end)

The Upper West Side directly abuts Central Park which is 1,000acres

The Upper West Side has 4 subway stations within its limits, and 2 more adjacent

Its also served by six bus routes.

There are no fewer than 8 High Schools

This would be a tiny island of density in an ocean of parks and lake.

Even with an inordinate amount of parkland, superficially, the City standard is 28m2 per person, which would net you 30ha of parkland within or immediately adjacent to this community.

This community will actually rank as parkland deficient the day its built.

If I stand next to Elon Musk, we are, on average, very rich.

Which is, of course, a very silly way to do the calculation; so instead, we consider the money over which you actually have legal access and control. In the same fashion, we want to consider not what is found 2km away from this new community, but what would be found within it.

 

[Northern Light]

In the larger context - this is mostly public land, and we have a housing shortage that need to be dealt with. What's been proposed is reasonable considering these factors,, plus the fact that the site is proximate to the urban core.

Sure, but to the average person, the core is not walking distance for commuting, school or a grocery store.

For this kind of density, the Ontario Line needs to have a stop in this community. The Waterfront East LRT and Broadview LRT, will not have sufficient capacity to move the projected population.

We need a High School, among other amenities to make this work. There is no indication that the supporting infrastructure will be in place.

I'd rather the density happens here instead of eating into say the Greenbelt.

AoD

Sure, but there are other alternatives.

1) Stop growing the population; that's a choice.

2) We can can place more moderate density across a much larger area.