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

jmi22 said:
ill apologize once your plan gets anywhere other than the echo chamber of this forum
Click to expand...

I didn't put forward a plan; I endorsed the previous plan (technically, for now, the current plan)

jmi22 said:
. The height is good and is appropriate considering the insane housing supply shortage Toronto (and Canada) are experiencing right now.
Click to expand...

You are welcome to your opinion; however, I think you are incorrect, I think it's the wrong solution to the problem, as currently proposed, and it creates more problems than it solves as currently proposed.

jmi22 said:
Concerns of parkland being overrun (as well as the bizarre comment from another poster wondering how much space each resident would have if they were all placed within the park at the same time) simply don't hold up to reality. Humber Bay Shores, as i'm sure you are aware, is incredibly high in density and the waterfront park is absolutely alive with people enjoying the weather on any given summer evening. I prefer to cycle there from New Toronto in order to experience the liveliness of the area, as opposed to the quiet parks of my area, brought on by a shrinking and aging population.
Click to expand...

In point of fact, Humber Bay Shores is desperately short of parkland, I have been there on summer weekends and good luck finding an empty bench to sit at; the trails are clogged, and the vegetation is suffering from being trampled.

Moreover, Humber Bay Shores has many problems (just ask the residents); no school for kids, no library, initially, no supermarket, and still only one, which is awkwardly situated; very poor transit service and perpetual traffic jams for those driving.

It's nice that you live in an area w/o these issues and dismiss summarily the concerns of those who do live in these areas and have to deal with them.

The issue is not density or height, it's density relative to provision of necessary services. At those density levels, the area should be on a subway, it needs its own high school, it needs a library and so on and so on.

These things can be addressed; though if the density were a bit less extreme in that one spot and spread around a bit more, the infrastructure could be provided more cost-effectively.

* for the record, by the way, I live in an apartment (multi--storey) in an apartment neighbourhood, just so we can squash all this anti-density nonsense.

jmi22 said:
As much as you would love to chalk up taller towers to "developer greed'
Click to expand...

Excuse me? At no point did I use the word greed; (I just searched that term in my name, and nothing came up in this thread in the last 2 calendar years.)

If you want to quote me, quote me.

This change is not being initiated by developers, it's a public policy choice that I happen to think is incorrect, as proposed.

More affordable housing is needed, but this is not, in my opinion the best, or most affordable way to achieve that.
 
While it's true that developers are in this to make money...so yes, they are greedy in that context, it's not a very helpful statement here. Rather instead, we should look at how we get them most out of this that will suit everyone...especially when government is not doing their part that they need to do to help out with the housing crises and such, IMO.
 
UtakataNoAnnex said:
While it's true that developers are in this to make money...so yes, they are greedy in that context, it's not a very helpful statement here. Rather instead, we should look at how we get them most out of this that will suit everyone...especially when government is not doing their part that they need to do to help out with the housing crises and such, IMO.
Click to expand...

Again, I didn't use the word greed.

My take here is that we're simply handling this wrong, in general and at this site specifically.

We're (as a society) not maximizing the right size/quality of housing at the right price for the majority, never mind the needy.

The solutions we're offering up are, at best, wholly inadequate, and ones that simply will not stem the further rise of homelessness and poverty, let alone alleviate it.
 
Undead said:
^And again, not a supply issue @jmi22
Click to expand...

I wouldn't go quite that far.

I would say that there is no way the industry can build significantly more housing than it is now.

As such we must reduce demand to align w/what can be delivered.

We must also understand that the simply meeting on-going demand w/market housing, will not improve affordability or homelessness.

We need a combination of more housing being built than there demand in order to reduce prices/rents and that will only be achieved by reducing demand in the near-term; but also we need more publicly-owned, rent-geared-to-income housing
as the so called affordable housing here is mostly about easing the burden on the middle class, not about housing the homeless of whom we have at least 14,000, and probably more, in the City of Toronto alone.
 
So these increases in housing are being delivered at the margin--floor plans will be similar/identical, supply chains will be in place, cranes are set up, crews will be familiar with the work site and have efficient routines in place: it's just a matter of adding a few extra floors on top. Aren't these simple, marginal increases in residential capacity where we should be targeting given a tight labour supply?
 
One would think that with the increase in density/heights considered, if they use a hybrid of two of the options, they could free some space for additional social infrastructure, such as a high school, library and/or expanded community centre. I'm not sure of the best way to address the parkland concern. One would think the land further south, being more remote from the core, might be suitable. Especially given that higher order transit is not envisioned to make the south portlands accessible. It would have been preferable to have a Cherry St OL station, but that ship has sailed.
 
afransen said:
One would think that with the increase in density/heights considered, if they use a hybrid of two of the options, they could free some space for additional social infrastructure, such as a high school, library and/or expanded community centre. I'm not sure of the best way to address the parkland concern. One would think the land further south, being more remote from the core, might be suitable. Especially given that higher order transit is not envisioned to make the south portlands accessible. It would have been preferable to have a Cherry St OL station, but that ship has sailed.
Click to expand...

I would accelerate putting LRT on Commissioner's and tie to as a feeder to Broadview extension to OL/GO at East Harbour. Too bad there is no OL station on Parliament - that would be a natural.

As to social infrastructure - just use the podiums. Parkland really isn't a valid concern IMO given the amount of contiguous green space available in the area, and this isn't the suburbs.

AoD
 
Last edited:
AlvinofDiaspar said:
I would accelerate putting LRT on Commissioner's and tie to as a feeder to Broadview extension to OL/GO at East Harbour. Too bad there is no OL station on Parliament - that would be a natural.

As to social infrastructure - just use the podiums. Parkland really isn't a valid concern IMO given the amount of contiguous green space available in the area, and this isn't the suburbs.

AoD
Click to expand...
Current timeframe the the Commissioner LRT is 2040-60.

Need money to do it.

Before you can have an LRT, you have to dig up the new Mouth of the Don to put footing in to support it like the road bridge and then the piers. You will have to have an area where you can splice the 2 sections together.

Then you need to able to walk the bridge to Commissioner St and then walk it across a temporary bridge over the river to place it on the supports or help a few 1000 ton crane to lift it over the river.

Going to be a lot more expensive than the road bridge to place it as well the cost to built it. This is on top of the disruption of the river and look of it.

On the map of Villiers Island, the future extensions should be shown,
 
smably said:
You mean Cherry? There more or less is a station on Parliament, or at least a 30 second walk west.
Click to expand...
You flying for that time as it's no way you can walk it in that timeframe? Maybe 5 minutes, depending on the person ability to do the walk.
 
drum118 said:
Current timeframe the the Commissioner LRT is 2040-60.

Need money to do it.

Before you can have an LRT, you have to dig up the new Mouth of the Don to put footing in to support it like the road bridge and then the piers. You will have to have an area where you can splice the 2 sections together.

Then you need to able to walk the bridge to Commissioner St and then walk it across a temporary bridge over the river to place it on the supports or help a few 1000 ton crane to lift it over the river.

Going to be a lot more expensive than the road bridge to place it as well the cost to built it. This is on top of the disruption of the river and look of it.

On the map of Villiers Island, the future extensions should be shown,
Click to expand...

I consider all of that cheaper and easier than the plans for Union/Bay Street.

AoD
 
  • Like
Reactions: DSC
AlvinofDiaspar said:
I consider all of that cheaper and easier than the plans for Union/Bay Street.

AoD
Click to expand...
That is why I have recommend and keep calling to build the portals and close off the tunnel and let TTC do the work when they have the money to do it, with an east-west line in operation by 2027.

2010, the cost was S90 million and $600 Million today for Union. What cost the increase of $510 Million over 12 years and what will that final cost be when construction start??

Doing commissioner and the South Cherry St bridges will be cheaper, but will be disputed of the river putting the bridges in place than doing a year ago, regardless they will sit empty until the expansion took place for them.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top