globalexpress
Active Member
Absurd and ignominious !
Last edited:
Toronto Lower Don Lands Redevelopment | ?m | ?s | Waterfront Toronto
JasonParis
Moderator
I commented. More should as well.
hawc
Senior Member
Huge, enormous thanks to kotsy very showing me how to safely and legally unlock previously forbidden zones!
Still going through my new Lemon & Cherry bridge shots, but in the meantime...
Giant Piles of Salt and Fang Bridge right next to the Lower Don Lands Development.
Still going through my new Lemon & Cherry bridge shots, but in the meantime...
Giant Piles of Salt and Fang Bridge right next to the Lower Don Lands Development.
hawc
Senior Member
So fun to fly around the entire Lower Don Lands Redevelopment!
Last edited:
globalexpress
Active Member
Wife and I finally had a chance this weekend to take the short drive to experience the two newly opened roads and bridges. Cool by day ... spectacular at night !
Traycer
New Member
The monthly Critical Mass group ride took place on Friday evening, and the destination was, of course, the Port Lands. 30 of us, many first-timers to the bridges, visited all three and breathed a collective sigh of relief not having to deal with the old Cherry/LSBE crossing and Villiers St. Here is our group shot homage to the Pizza Hut logo:
blitzraj1
New Member
I'm excited about this project but I am wondering what opportunities the public has for input regarding the building blocks?
I feel like Toronto would benefit immensely if they removed the blocks west of Cherry Street and expanded the park. It could be used for anything including baseball fields and soccer.
I feel like Toronto would benefit immensely if they removed the blocks west of Cherry Street and expanded the park. It could be used for anything including baseball fields and soccer.
UtakataNoAnnex
Senior Member
...I'll miss the racoon though. 
Northern Light
Superstar
@AlexBozikovic has a new column up on this project.
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/can...ands-revitalization-project-proves-different/ (behind the paywall}
It's generally positive about the project in the 'see, we can do big things' vibe'.
Along with his plaudits, he offers his long-standing complaints about density here, with which I continue to disagree. The proposed density, even before significant increases which are coming, will be considerably greater than many areas Alex has deemed too dense.
He also comments on overly wide roads, on which he and I do agree, though I would generally argue for lower streetwallls {podiums) in conjunction with same.
On trees, he makes this comment "There are planting beds, whose occupants will likely die of neglect from the city’s abysmal maintenance practices". I find this rather odd. Trees, once established, really ought not to require 'maintenance' to remain alive and healthy. Pruning is done for human convenience, to keep branches from encroaching on buildings/wires etc, and to removing limbs that may be shed on someone's head or their car. Trees do die too often in Toronto, but this is largely due to poor planting conditions, including insufficient soil volumes, insufficient clearance from wires/buildings requiring overly aggressive pruning, poor soil quality and/or drainage, inadequate access to water (too much hard surface); too much exposure to salt, and crappy planting. Sometimes, questionable species selection is also an issue, as is planting at inappropriate times. (ie. when trees are not in dormancy mode in spring, or for some species, late autumn.)
Excluding irrigation, trees, once established should not require watering; though irrigation can be beneficial for maximum growth, and to mitigate losses during droughts.
For the most part, the design of planting beds here should be vastly better than is typical for the City; I haven't had a chance to examine what species actually made it in ground (last minute substitutes are a big issue in many projects); and how they were planted; I will probably wait til spring to give an evaluation, at which time I will report on what percentage appear to be doing well.
Next, Alex takes some issue with the benches that have been installed.
This is @alex's pic from up thread.
And the new benches on these streets are all of the same design, in which you sit on a beam of heavy timber. This appears to violate the city’s own accessibility guidelines."
I think the above should have been paired with a question to WT and/or the City on this point and their reply. That said, I would take the view that a large chunk of seating requires backrests as many people will require these when sitting. Arm rests may also be beneficial for some, though less of an issue; and those should be universal.
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/can...ands-revitalization-project-proves-different/ (behind the paywall}
It's generally positive about the project in the 'see, we can do big things' vibe'.
Along with his plaudits, he offers his long-standing complaints about density here, with which I continue to disagree. The proposed density, even before significant increases which are coming, will be considerably greater than many areas Alex has deemed too dense.
He also comments on overly wide roads, on which he and I do agree, though I would generally argue for lower streetwallls {podiums) in conjunction with same.
On trees, he makes this comment "There are planting beds, whose occupants will likely die of neglect from the city’s abysmal maintenance practices". I find this rather odd. Trees, once established, really ought not to require 'maintenance' to remain alive and healthy. Pruning is done for human convenience, to keep branches from encroaching on buildings/wires etc, and to removing limbs that may be shed on someone's head or their car. Trees do die too often in Toronto, but this is largely due to poor planting conditions, including insufficient soil volumes, insufficient clearance from wires/buildings requiring overly aggressive pruning, poor soil quality and/or drainage, inadequate access to water (too much hard surface); too much exposure to salt, and crappy planting. Sometimes, questionable species selection is also an issue, as is planting at inappropriate times. (ie. when trees are not in dormancy mode in spring, or for some species, late autumn.)
Excluding irrigation, trees, once established should not require watering; though irrigation can be beneficial for maximum growth, and to mitigate losses during droughts.
For the most part, the design of planting beds here should be vastly better than is typical for the City; I haven't had a chance to examine what species actually made it in ground (last minute substitutes are a big issue in many projects); and how they were planted; I will probably wait til spring to give an evaluation, at which time I will report on what percentage appear to be doing well.
Next, Alex takes some issue with the benches that have been installed.
This is @alex's pic from up thread.
And the new benches on these streets are all of the same design, in which you sit on a beam of heavy timber. This appears to violate the city’s own accessibility guidelines."
I think the above should have been paired with a question to WT and/or the City on this point and their reply. That said, I would take the view that a large chunk of seating requires backrests as many people will require these when sitting. Arm rests may also be beneficial for some, though less of an issue; and those should be universal.
Last edited:
globalexpress
Active Member
Just noticed the reflection on the hood in the video I took.
hawc
Senior Member
DSC
Superstar
Member Bio
- Joined
- Jan 13, 2008
- Messages
- 19,835
- Reaction score
- 28,767
- Location
- St Lawrence Market Area
When I go to web Google Map the update remains un-done but I assume it will be, thanks.
DSC
Superstar
Member Bio
- Joined
- Jan 13, 2008
- Messages
- 19,835
- Reaction score
- 28,767
- Location
- St Lawrence Market Area
I forced a Chrome update and it's DONE!!
hawc
Senior Member
evandyk
Senior Member
Oh nice! Indeed it is. The road that UrbanToronto built.
More like "The road that Rebel nightclub built"