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

Globe & Mail article this morning (behind paywall) about Villiers being another potential disaster. Can anyone post a summary of what it's saying?

Article:


“ The city, province and the feds could build thousands more affordable homes here; city planners and the agency Waterfront Toronto would prefer not to.”

1. Low number of homes

“ The 40-hectare island, on the doorstep of downtown Toronto, is now planned for about 9,000 homes, plus cultural uses and retail. That density number is very low – perhaps half of what any private landowner would ask for today.”

2. Poor streetscape

“ This “mix” is a stew of the technical and the subjective, including “solar access” and a desire for very wide streets. Somehow the island plan has almost as much street space – 8.8 hectares – as the 10.6 hectares devoted to buildings.


That is disastrous urban design, without precedent or excuse.”

“ Panel member Nina-Marie Lister, a planner, ecological designer and Toronto Metropolitan University professor, sent criticisms to the panel by e-mail.




“The precinct looks and feels like more of the same,” she wrote. It seems to be “a neighbourhood catering to the car,” and it needs more density, narrower streets, multiple scales of buildings and a “finer grain” of development.””

Note: Alex compares it incredibly poorly to Montreal’s own project:

 
Globe & Mail article this morning (behind paywall) about Villiers being another potential disaster. Can anyone post a summary of what it's saying?

Edit: @allengeorge's summary is much better

It's by Alex Bozikowic. Summary (quick read): too much space given to roads, not enough to buildings. It could house more than 9000. It's going to be here for 100+ years, so we need to get this right, so he suggests another planning round for 6 months. There's disagreement amongst the members of the volunteer planning committee for the Villiers Island area. The plan that they contentiously approved is going to the city's planning committee this week and to council next week.
 
Article:


“ The city, province and the feds could build thousands more affordable homes here; city planners and the agency Waterfront Toronto would prefer not to.”

1. Low number of homes

“ The 40-hectare island, on the doorstep of downtown Toronto, is now planned for about 9,000 homes, plus cultural uses and retail. That density number is very low – perhaps half of what any private landowner would ask for today.”

The above is not supported by the facts.

I have laid out the facts on this repeatedly, the above simply doubles down with opinion unsupported by evidence.

2. Poor streetscape “ This “mix” is a stew of the technical and the subjective, including “solar access” and a desire for very wide streets. Somehow the island plan has almost as much street space – 8.8 hectares – as the 10.6 hectares devoted to buildings.


That is disastrous urban design, without precedent or excuse.”

“ Panel member Nina-Marie Lister, a planner, ecological designer and Toronto Metropolitan University professor, sent criticisms to the panel by e-mail.

This is misleading. the building face to building face distance is how that calculation is being made, which includes the sidewalk space, patio space, pedestrian space and cycle tracks.

I happen to prefer narrower building to building distances, but to achieve this you have to lower the street wall, you also have to lower the number of cars, which can only be achieved one of two ways, a subway stop on Villiers or less density than is currently proposed.

Breaking up larger blocks with mid-block mews would help as well; but again, this creates low street walls and less space for towers.

Unfortunately, the discussion in the piece simply lacks any discussion of the trade-offs in it.

Note: Alex compares it incredibly poorly to Montreal’s own project:


Regrettably, this comparison again asserts something that is not supported by the facts here.

While there are aspects of the Wellington Basin project worth emulating................

it's notable that the Montreal proposal is 20% less dense than Villiers.

To achieve the inaccurate comparison of density, the piece wrongly includes the river basin in the Toronto calculation, to do the same thing in Montreal, you would include the water in the Basin itself and that would lower the density in Montreal even more drastically.

A fair comparison shows Villiers at ~41,000 units per km2; where the Wellington Basin is 33,000 units per km2.

Further, the Wellington Basin proposal contains only 1.3ha of parks, insufficient to support even one sports field.

Let's then add, I have some concerns over the viability of the Montreal proposal as is; it's comparatively surrounded by highways, and is not served by subway, Lucien-L'Allier station is just over 1km from here which is just outside what most people consider a reasonable commuting walk. The plan relies on construction of an as yet, unapproved, unfunded REM Station in order to achieve its objectives.

Note the difference there w/Villiers, that it would have higher order transit on site, or so the proponents hope, with their fingers crossed.

*****

That said, there are things in the Wellington Basin proposal that I quite like:

The choice to go for larger, centralized parking facilities. I specifically noted that possibility for Villiers, as opposed to thinking about parking on building by building or block by block basis. That said, given the water table in the Portlands, there is a material cost to going deep underground, and the alternative is an above-grade parking facility, which would result in reduced density.

I like the Wellington proposal for including a swimmable beach; I'm not sure that is/was feasible on Villers so long as their is a working port here, a concrete facility here, and Cherry Beach isn't that far. Still, good inclusion.

I do like the variable building heights; I'm also keen on the fact the Montreal proposal leans shorter (less tall) than Villiers.

Finally, the best part of the Wellington proposal is its ambition on affordable housing.......notwithstanding that it is less dense than Villiers:

1718280927378.png


That is from this:


Where can glean further info about the project; you can also consult this:

 
Last edited:
Yikes.

I might have mentioned it before, but I think it would be super helpful if anyone could point to a development in Toronto (not Amsterdam or Berlin or some far away place) in the last 20 years that is an example of GREAT URBAN PLANNING on a relatively big scale. It would be so nice if someone could say, "We need to do it like they did HERE!" But I never see that, it's always just, CityPlace is a disaster, Liberty Village is a disaster, Corktown Commons is a disaster and on and on." Show us one big success that we can then copy. New Regent Park? Or is that a failure too?

II hope Villiers is a success. It feels great so far, but I'm not an expert.
 
Last edited:
Wow. That's pretty damning.

I've mentioned it before, but I think it would be super helpful if anyone could point to a development in Toronto (not or Amsterdam or Berlin or something) in the last 50 years that is an example of GREAT URBAN PLANNING on a relatively large scale. It would be so nice if someone could just say, "We need to do it more often the way we did it HERE!" But I never see that, it's always just, CityPlace is a disaster, Liberty Village is a disaster, and on and on." Show me one big success that we can then copy. New Regent Park? Or is that a failure too?

It's just so depressing. I hope Villiers is a success. It feels great so far, but I'm not an expert.

I think St. Lawrence was our greatest planning success in post WWII Toronto.

Most people who walk the Esplanade like the scale, the architecture, the mix of old (repurposed heritage buildings) along with newer buildings some of which have designs give them a 'heritage feel' and others of which are more modern.

After that, its gets more challenging to talk about whole communities/neighbourhoods, post WWII that are universally seen as successful in Toronto.

There's lots to like in the new Regent Park, but there are some shortcomings as well. Dundas likely should have been a central shopping district, along with Parliament being a natural bridge between Cabbagetown and Corktown. That was a missed opportunity.

I think the streetwall work could be a bit better. It's also a bit unfortunate that a few more mature trees couldn't be saved and worked around, it would have given the place a slightly more organic feel. As would finding even one block on the site where one might have re-created the pre-Regent Park housing style (non-slum) just to add flavour/variety.

Still, it's a marked improvement over its previous iteration.

Toronto actually has had many decent developments, in part, guided by good planning, but most are at a smaller than neighbourhood scale.
 
Last edited:
Yikes.

I might have mentioned it before, but I think it would be super helpful if anyone could point to a development in Toronto (not Amsterdam or Berlin or some far away place) in the last 20 years that is an example of GREAT URBAN PLANNING on a relatively big scale. It would be so nice if someone could say, "We need to do it like they did HERE!" But I never see that, it's always just, CityPlace is a disaster, Liberty Village is a disaster, Corktown Commons is a disaster and on and on." Show us one big success that we can then copy. New Regent Park? Or is that a failure too?

II hope Villiers is a success. It feels great so far, but I'm not an expert.

I feel like CityPlace, for all its faults, is getting better with age.

Liberty Village... no comment.

I think St. Lawrence was our greatest planning success in post WWII Toronto.

Most people who walk the Esplanade like the scale, the architecture, the mix of old (repurposed heritage buildings) along with newer buildings some of which have designs give them a 'heritage feel' and others of which are more modern.

After that, its gets more challenging to talk about whole communities/neighbourhoods, post WWII that are universally seen as successful in Toronto.

100% agree on St. Lawrence.
 
What's the feeling on Canary District? Success or too soon to tell. I know a lot of it still under construction.

There's a lot to like, a lot of good architectural quality, and Corktown Common is beloved.

The main knock on the district is the size of the ROWs, particularly Front Street.

Front simply didn't need to be a wide as it is, it's not the actual road width, the linear park/north sidewalk that is just a bit much.

The other ROWs are a function of both streetwall height and the amount and location of parking (presumed car traffic).

This could have been addressed better, but aside from requiring lower street walls, in an area with relatively low employment use, it needed a higher-order transit connection to downtown in order to slash the parking supply.

It would have been nice to see a slightly finer grain to a couple of the blocks as well, but this would have seen a reduction in density and it would have spiked at least one tower.
 
What does 'finer grain' mean for us non-urban planner types?

Agree, Canary District feels really nice to walk/bike around.

Finer Grain in reference to a street grid, generally means more streets and/or midblock pedestrian connections the break-up super-sized blocks of land into smaller parcels.

In respect of built form (buildings) it generally means more, smaller (not small) buildings and/or the breaking up of massing (how many buildings does it appear to be) with differing facades or street wall heights (Mirvish Village on Bathurst would be an example of trying to make it appear there are more different buildings as opposed to fewer larger ones.)
 
There's a lot to like, a lot of good architectural quality, and Corktown Common is beloved.

The main knock on the district is the size of the ROWs, particularly Front Street.

Front simply didn't need to be a wide as it is, its not the actual road width, the linear park/north sidewalk that is just a bit much.

The other ROWs are a function of both streetwall height and the amount and location of parking (presumed car traffic).

This could have been addressed better, but aside from requiring lower street walls, in an area with relatively low employment use, it needed a higher-order transit connection to downtown in order to slash the parking supply.

It would have been nice to see a slightly finer grain to a couple of the blocks as well, but this would have seen a reduction in density and it would have spiked at least one tower.

I take your notes (and love your expert contributions), but I always push back against criticisms of the linear park along Front Street. I think it's fantastic.

UT contributors often gripe about a lack of public realm and park space, then a neighbourhood is built that provides that space exclusively for pedestrian use and it's further criticism. The linear park includes dozens of established trees, high quality pavers, a play fountain, significant public art pieces, benches, water fountains, and little gardens. I have never felt safer walking in the City as a pedestrian than in that area, because I am so distant from cars. There is relatively little vehicle traffic, very little street parking, and it's quiet. It's extremely accessible for people with disabilities. I often see children riding bikes, dogs playing, and families meeting in the area.

I agree that to some it still feels a bit "empty", but the neighbourhood isn't complete. Several buildings are just or about to be completed, several more are still to come, and we just got a grocery store. There is a future school site nearby. This summer, I have noticed more activity than ever before, with businesses gradually expanding their patios into the ROW and community groups starting to use the space more frequently. I think it will be great for future public events.

Aside from the Cherry Street and King/Queen streetcars, soon enough, there will soon be a LOT of higher order transit relatively nearby -- Corktown Station, East Harbour Station (subway and GO), and perhaps one day a streetcar linking Cherry Street and Queen's Quay East. Sure, a subway station at Cherry Street would have been great, but the ship has sailed.

Ultimately, I feel the neighbourhood is quite similar to the Esplanade, which it itself based on a wide linear park and was just cited as a planning success. Not even arguably, but factually, the Canary District is or will be much more lively, with a denser concentration of modern retail stores and restaurants. I think we should give the are the time it deserves to mature.
 
I was recently at a continuing education event where TCHC was presenting, and I can tell you that they certainly feel Regent Park is a huge success.

I think on the whole, it is rather successful, but agree with @Northern Light about Parliament and Dundas Streets being missed opportunities. I also think that a bit more density in the earlier phases, especially if this would have enabled the addition of new rent-geared-to-income units rather than solely replacement, would have been better, but it looks like the right balance will be struck in the last phases.

I also think that criticism of Corktown Commons is overdone. Yes, it could have been a bit denser, and yes Front Street is a bit too wide, but overall it is a very pleasant place whenever I visit, and the "empty" feeling is disappearing as it gets built out. I think the "this should be denser" argument arises mostly because there are so few available well-located large scale opportunities. I think the neighbourhood, when fully built, will be dense enough to be a vibrant downtown district, but that is different than saying it will be as dense as it could be while maintaining livability.

I also think the criticism of some of the more maligned areas (City Place, Liberty Village, Humber Bay Shores) is overdone. Each of these has significant positives to go with the negatives, and I know residents of each who love where they live. Plus, hope for improvement is not lost for any of the three - I think the Allies + Morrison plan together with the impending Park Lawn GO station could transform HBS into a truly model community. Access to Liberty Village is going to be greatly improved by the coming Smart Track station (not sure what the right term is for it) and Exhibition Ontario Line stop. Even City Place has a lot to look forward to - most immediately with the expansion of The Bentway through there, then with a new GO stop at Spadina, and eventually with whatever happens to the Rail Deck, which will better tie it into the neighbourhoods to the north.
 
I take your notes (and love your expert contributions),

Thank you. I appreciate that.

but I always push back against criticisms of the linear park along Front Street. I think it's fantastic.

Fair.

UT contributors often gripe about a lack of public realm and park space, then a neighbourhood is built that provides that space exclusively for pedestrian use and it's further criticism. The linear park includes dozens of established trees, high quality pavers, a play fountain, significant public art pieces, benches, water fountains, and little gardens. I have never felt safer walking in the City as a pedestrian than in that area, because I am so distant from cars. There is relatively little vehicle traffic, very little street parking, and it's quiet. It's extremely accessible for people with disabilities. I often see children riding bikes, dogs playing, and families meeting in the area.

These are all excellent points and what the planning team was hoping would be appreciated. It's a matter of personal preference that I would have taken one fewer rows of trees in favour of slightly more urban vibe, and shifted some of the park elements to a dedicated space. But there's nothing wrong w/your take.

I agree that to some it still feels a bit "empty", but the neighbourhood isn't complete. Several buildings are just or about to be completed, several more are still to come, and we just got a grocery store. There is a future school site nearby. This summer, I have noticed more activity than ever before, with businesses gradually expanding their patios into the ROW and community groups starting to use the space more frequently. I think it will be great for future public events.

Again, entirely fair. I myself have noted that part of the issue is one of phasing, and getting a critical mass of residents to sustain the retail. That, however, was exacerbated by building away from existing areas early in the process, rather that starting from Parliament and working east. I do get that too, they wanted to highlight Corktown Common (the park) and not strand it with everything being built some distance away at the beginning. Trade-offs are a thing.

Aside from the Cherry Street and King/Queen streetcars, soon enough, there will soon be a LOT of higher order transit relatively nearby -- Corktown Station, East Harbour Station (subway and GO), and perhaps one day a streetcar linking Cherry Street and Queen's Quay East. Sure, a subway station at Cherry Street would have been great, but the ship has sailed.

To the extent that King functions as it should and can (more or less as if it had its own ROW) the streetcar on Cherry can work. The 'subway' stations are not exactly central to the area.......... which is unfortunate, but certainly will help. My point there was simply that the block pattern here was determined in part by the need to accommodate traffic and parking, and that the absence of a subway station led to planning somewhat more parking than would have otherwise been the case.

Ultimately, I feel the neighbourhood is quite similar to the Esplanade, which it itself based on a wide linear park and was just cited as a planning success. Not even arguably, but factually, the Canary District is or will be much more lively, with a denser concentration of modern retail stores and restaurants. I think we should give the are the time it deserves to mature.

100% agree. I don't think Canary is a fail, I think it's quite good overall, I was just noting the knocks on it by some; such that it would difficult to say it's universally appreciated today. But it may well be in the years ahead.
 
I think a lot of the points above are correct, but at the end of the day, I think that "success" and "failure" are primarily just fancy ways of saying "I like this area" and "I don't like this area."
  • People still live in "unsuccessful" neighbourhoods and like them, and feel happy in them. It always feels a little obnoxious to tell people that they are living in a failed neighbourhood.
  • I often find that "successful" neighbourhoods often equals "bougie neighbourhood that I want to live in" or "bougie neighbourhood I saw on my vacation that I want to live in." There's a lot of snobbery in urban planning. (Sorry!)
  • I think we can get a little too hung up on the exact details of a neighbourhood in planning it. I think what is vastly more important than choosing the right details is making neighbourhoods flexible and open to reuse and change. Setting exact streetwalls or worrying about widths of parks is less important than: have we provided a framework that will allow this neighbourhood to change over time?
  • Alex Bozokovic is a smart guy and a good writer writing click-bait-y articles so that he doesn't get algorithm-d out of a job.
 

Back
Top