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

I think of myself and pride myself on being pragmatic and balanced. That's not to suggest I get everything right in that regard every time, but I certainly try to.
Click to expand...

Sigh OK, I'll respond to some of your comments, but only because I'm unemployed :)

First of all, I'm no planner, just a bitter renter. When I suggested 25k, it was a pipe dream. It's what I wish to see in the neighbourhood.

If you suggest you are pragmatic and balanced, you MUST admit calling it an immediate SLUM was a bit over the top. "elevator waits of up to 45 minutes", that's an issue of elevators/units, not the total island population.... at all. I would never live in a condo building, but if I had to, I wouldn't live in a building above a certain unit/elevator ratio. "Hour long drives to schools"... again, complete fabrication. Simply put 2-3 schools on the island or adjacent. Put them in the podiums of towers for christ's sake. It's not impossible. Across the river in two directions (south and east) are lowrise proposed employment districts. Lots of room for overflow of services for Villiers.

There is no proposed streetcar route to TTP. None.
Click to expand...
I am really surprised by this comment, especially from someone as well read as you. Map:

201758-transit-network.png


Source: WaterfrontToronto via BlogTO

The Commissioner streetcar reaching Leslie and turning north towards the Leslie barns has been planned for at least as long a the Leslie Barns have been drafted. Now mind you the intersection of Commissioner & Leslie might be a few hundred feet from the TTP gate, I'm sure people biking and walking the 10km roundtrip don't mind :). I'm not sure if it was symantics that made you say there is no planned streetcar route to TTP, because it's WT that proposed it and not the TTC or the city, or maybe it's because I got this map from BlogTO, but there are many many dozens of versions of this map that show the same TTC track plan, and apologies if WT isn't official enough of a plan for you. It's what I've been using. Oh and for the sake of argument let's agree that the purple streetcar won't be built for another 50 years. We're talking Commissioners here.

how does it resolve the problem of a fare to access the neighbourhood park?
Click to expand...
Here's what I don't like about your arguments. The slightest obstacle and you're calling the plan unfeasible. Here's my approach as an engineer: Let's be pragmatic about the situation. How do we ensure that the people of Villier's Island have even more than their already ample access to green space? Give them a pass to use the ferry for free. Let's do the same for everyone below the Gardiner since they also deserve local accessible green space. Let's make that whole route free since I can't really picture people from outside downtown going to Villiers to access the island. Let's build that drawbridge that was proposed! Let's make it a streetcar track with a loop at Ward's beach! Let's incentivize water taxis here, let's build another tunnel (kidding). Let's get it done! Let's brainstorm a better city together!

I lived in NYC and loved the NYC ferry system. It opened up a whole new world of access to waterfronts that are usually devoid of underground subway access, and it was fun as an urban enthusiast and explorer. I took every visitor up the East River, under the beautiful bridges, and along the skylines for the cost of a subway fare. I would love to see a NYC ferry style system running throughout the ship basin, around TTP to Woodbine beach, across the harbour of course, and a few stops along the waterfront like maybe Humber or Bluffers. Sadly I think the NYC system loses a lot of money 😥

kyler said:
We're about to double our ferry fleet.
Click to expand...

We are? Seriously, I read the budget every year, this is the first I've heard of this........maybe I missed it, please provide a link.
Click to expand...

One new electric combined pax/car ferry. Three new passenger ferries. First two arrive 2025 in service 2026. I know the current ferries are at the end of their life, but I'm sure they can operate long enough to get replacements in, or we can get a few new routes of service out of the combined 7 ferry fleet. WIll the Trillium ever operate on a regular schedule again? Again, some creative thinking might be required.

But if you're going to argue I'm out to lunch, I'd like to see your homework. (evidence, math, anything that actually supports your position.)
Click to expand...
Listen I don't think you're out to lunch. You're obviously very well read and I respect a lot of your posts on here, but I found your response to my suggestion of 25,000 units on Villiers fairly exaggerated and sensationalist, and I have spent a lot of time now explaining why. Is 25k units ideal? Definitely not. But with the amount of infrastructure we're paying for here (by your measurement $10B), and it's proximity to a city/jobs/more infrastructure), plus the fact that the public owns 90% of the land, we have an opportunity here to make a massive dent in our housing crisis, in a beautiful park-filled setting, free of NIMBYs, and out of the way of most people's commutes making it easier to do things at such a large scale. I won't argue anymore, but summarizing your assumptions about a 25k unit Villier's, you pull together every worst case scenario as if there is no control or oversight to the outcome, and state is as fact because of your vast experience and knowledge. I just don't think that's fair, or expected from someone like you.
 
kyler said:
If you suggest you are pragmatic and balanced, you MUST admit calling it an immediate SLUM was a bit over the top. "elevator waits of up to 45 minutes", that's an issue of elevators/units, not the total island population.... at all. I would never live in a condo building, but if I had to, I wouldn't live in a building above a certain unit/elevator ratio. "Hour long drives to schools"... again, complete fabrication. Simply put 2-3 schools on the island or adjacent. Put them in the podiums of towers for christ's sake. It's not impossible. Across the river in two directions (south and east) are lowrise proposed employment districts. Lots of room for overflow of services for Villiers.
Click to expand...
As has been demonstrated, introducing all these extra elevators, schools, and any non-dwelling space stretches your floor space thin. It results in taller and wider towers with fewer setbacks.

If you look through the traffic projections from most recent slides (I believe NL posted screens here in the past week) you’ll understand the LRT and road connections are planned with ~9000 residents (sans jobs & visitors) in mind. Let’s also imagine vertical circulation and public services are designed to support that same estimate. If the population increases beyond that, it is easily observed how quality of life falls off (low availability of elevators, transit, services, windier & shadier environment) and the cost to combat these issues becomes increasingly expensive (sacrifice floor space, and stack more floors on top to reach occupancy targets).

kyler said:
Let's get it done! Let's brainstorm a better city together!
Click to expand...
I commend the enthusiasm but we’re surpassing a particular signal-to-noise threshold here. Broad idea generation is great but there is also need for thorough, holistic designs and so scrupulous review is typical here.

It’s not that we don’t want to rock the boat, but making acceptable design alternatives usually requires some conformity. Best progress is made with incremental changes, the harder we push boundaries the more time we spend debating and not executing. Then it’s all just noise.
 
reinventingthewheel said:
As has been demonstrated, introducing all these extra elevators, schools, and any non-dwelling space stretches your floor space thin. It results in taller and wider towers with fewer setbacks.

If you look through the traffic projections from most recent slides (I believe NL posted screens here in the past week) you’ll understand the LRT and road connections are planned with ~9000 residents (sans jobs & visitors) in mind. Let’s also imagine vertical circulation and public services are designed to support that same estimate. If the population increases beyond that, it is easily observed how quality of life falls off (low availability of elevators, transit, services, windier & shadier environment) and the cost to combat these issues becomes increasingly expensive (sacrifice floor space, and stack more floors on top to reach occupancy targets).


I commend the enthusiasm but we’re surpassing a particular signal-to-noise threshold here. Broad idea generation is great but there is also need for thorough, holistic designs and so scrupulous review is typical here.

It’s not that we don’t want to rock the boat, but making acceptable design alternatives usually requires some conformity. Best progress is made with incremental changes, the harder we push boundaries the more time we spend debating and not executing. Then it’s all just noise.
Click to expand...
Thanks for replying with reasonable arguments and for not being needlessly sensationalist.
 
Last edited:
Northern Light said:
Presentation Materials are now online.


From the above:

View attachment 559764

Conceptual Render:

View attachment 559767

View attachment 559768
View attachment 559769

View attachment 559770
View attachment 559771

View attachment 559772

View attachment 559773

View attachment 559774


This (below) is very good work, praise-worthy. It actually tests all the different permutations of height/massing, particularly podium levels and their impacts on sun access.

View attachment 559775

View attachment 559776

One may recall that a concern I expressed over jacking density here is that the level of planned transit would not support it: The modelling certainly points in that direction, like with the Golden Mile.

That does not mean one can't do higher density here, but there if you want higher density you must plan (and deliver) the appropriate level of transit and other supporting infrastructure.

View attachment 559777

There are a lot more slides if you follow the link, but only so many can be placed in one post.
Click to expand...

Thanks, Northern, for the update.

As I noted in my previous post, I supported a modest increase in density over the original proposal, and I think the newest proposal hits the sweet spot. I know there have been some rumblings on UT and social media that Villiers Island is still not dense enough, but I'm reluctant to support more density until the transit plans are officially approved.
 
What's with all the trailers and camper vans? Have we got a bit of an encampment situation developing on this street?
 
Thanks! As far as the caravans go I believe that they are owned by film studio workers who stay in them instead of a hotel. Much cheaper.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top