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

[rdaner]

^Yes! The car dealerships can be seen as a meanwhile use.

 

[DSCToronto]

Can we find someone to zone the hell out of car dealerships 1. Downtown and 2. Within 15km of the waterfront?

I’d prefer we just go back and build a Home Depot

As noted by others, car dealerships are generally not seen as 'for ever' developments and tend to be built on grade and easily demolished. However, like you I might have found a Home Depot more useful

 

[hawc]

I can definitely think of some dealerships that have been in their current location for decades. Like some going on 40 or 50 years in one spot.

But Downtown Porsche is interesting...

It used to be at Avenue Road and Davenport before that got turned into a condo.

Then it moved to King & Parliament until that got turned into a Ontario Line construction site. And that one was wild because they had just built a brand new dealership there that met all the worldwide Porsche brand standards, it was like one of the nicest in Canada. And a few years later just got demolished. Would love to know what the province paid them.

Now they're in the former Volvo dealership under the Gardiner at Parliament in some hellscape like something out of Adventures in Babysitting.

So I'm glad they're moving into a brand new place on Cherry. I think it'll be nice.

Mind you I bought all my Porsches from Pfaff and always found Downtown Porsche to be pretty sketchy for service. One time I parked my car in the lot and ran in to buy something from the parts department and when I came out the they had unscrewed my Pfaff plate frames, threw them in the garbage and had screwed on Downtown Porsche plate frames instead. I'm like, are you insane??? They went and reversed it all and I was like last time I come here.

Yeah so maybe on second thought I also don't want them to be in the Lower Don Lands.

But I do like cars. And I think we need roads as a society to function. I don't want to be a subsistence farmer.

 

[max]

TIL plate frames are a status symbol

 

[hawc]

TIL plate frames are a status symbol

Ha. Don't know if I'd call them a status symbol. More of a dealership getting some free advertising on your car.

 

[allengeorge]

I won't speak for Alex.

I'm taking my numbers directly from WT as posted on the previous page. Yes, those are for the developable blocks.

Including the adjacent streets would be like telling Concord (at Sky) they could water down their FSI by including the land area of Yonge Street and Gerrard, which doesn't make any sense to me. Just as a development on Broadview next to the Don Valley, doesn't get to factor in all of the valley they can't build on.

We have to calculate FSI or Density the same way every time or any comparison is meaningless.

Thanks for the clarification @Northern Light.

So it really all boils down to how much of the developable land is given over to roads. You’ve made the case that this was unavoidable given the lack of existing transit and planned high-capacity rapid transit. As a result, city planners designed Villiers as a more car-oriented neighborhood. In my opinion, that’s a massive miss by the city and Metrolinx, and is a wasted opportunity. The planners were unfortunately working with the constraints of what they had :/

I think it’s doubly disappointing because (I suspect) residences will go in long before the WELRT is built, meaning that residents will default to a car-oriented lifestyle. Moreover, building transit at that point will be more expensive and more disruptive. It’s hard not to shake one’s head at this state of affairs.

Finally, I have my doubts about the vibrancy of this neighborhood once all is built out, but - happy to wait and see and be proven wrong!

(Personally, I would have been more aggressive about the density, and made the assumption that more people would be forced not to have cars.)

 

[Northern Light]

Thanks for the clarification @Northern Light.

So it really all boils down to how much of the developable land is given over to roads. You’ve made the case that this was unavoidable given the lack of existing transit and planned high-capacity rapid transit. As a result, city planners designed Villiers as a more car-oriented neighborhood. In my opinion, that’s a massive miss by the city and Metrolinx, and is a wasted opportunity. The planners were unfortunately working with the constraints of what they had :/

I'll partly agree with this...........

But I'll note that the space devoted to ROWs is majority devoted to pedestrian and cycling space, not cars.

I have no issue with and in fact quite like narrower ROWs, but they require, generally, shorter street walls and smaller block sizes, so you end up with the same non-building space, but a different layout.

You can reduce the space devoted to cars in the interior of the community by putting larger garages at the periphery, but, broadly, this is likely to come at the expense of density. (you can go underground, but with a super high water table, that costs a lot)

Personally, I would have been more aggressive about the density, and made the assumption that more people would be forced not to have cars.)

See Liberty Village. It didn't work. If people don't have convenient transit, they will drive. I'm all for less parking, but one must answer questions:

Distance to school(s)
Distance to Employment
Distance to Grocery
Transit, Transit, Transit. (good enough in frequency, capacity, speed, and comfort to induce choice riders)

 

[hawc]

Personally, I would have been more aggressive about the density, and made the assumption that more people would be forced not to have cars.

Yeah I personally think you do all you can to 'encourage' people to take transit, but I don't think 'forcing' people not to have cars works.

But hey I'm more of a carrot than a stick guy.

Where I live in Cabbagetown you can live 80% of the week on bicycle, walking, transit. I take TTC to/from work each day. But with 2 young kids there are times you need a car or the outting would be an ENORMOUS hassle. I'd never want to live somewhere where I had to have a car for everything (i.e. suburbs) but likewise I wouldn't buy where I was actively discouraged from driving those 20% of a time things.

Anyway, I know most of Urban_Toronto disagrees with this. And I still love you all.

 

[allengeorge]

But I'll note that the space devoted to ROWs is majority devoted to pedestrian and cycling space, not cars.

Yeap - you’ve posted the stats, which I really appreciate. I also like that the ROWs are much less wide than the redone Front (which is ridiculously wide) and does make that part of the city feel desolate; I really doubt that are will improve after buildout. Glad to see we’re not repeating that here.

I have no issue with and in fact quite like narrower ROWs, but they require, generally, shorter street walls and smaller block sizes, so you end up with the same non-building space, but a different layout.

I’m torn on this. I think there’s a case to be made that we could allow taller street walls than you advocate for. Plenty of older parts of dense US cities have high street walls and narrow streets - and people love them!

You can reduce the space devoted to cars in the interior of the community by putting larger garages at the periphery, but, broadly, this is likely to come at the expense of density. (you can go underground, but with a super high water table, that costs a lot)

Yeah. That’s a really hard problem here given the water table.

See Liberty Village. It didn't work. If people don't have convenient transit, they will drive.

Was the increase in cars proportionate to the increase in people? If you increased density by 20% and vehicular traffic by 10% I would…be ok with that. The real question is whether there’s a differential between density increase and vehicular increase, and how much do we anticipate that to be? If each additional person results in an additional car - that’s bad.

I'm all for less parking, but one must answer questions:

Distance to school(s)
Distance to Employment
Distance to Grocery
Transit, Transit, Transit. (good enough in frequency, capacity, speed, and comfort to induce choice riders)

Aren’t the first 3 a function of zoning and what the city compels developers to do? (The employment piece is very very hard)

 

[allengeorge]

Yeah I personally think you do all you can to 'encourage' people to take transit, but I don't think 'forcing' people not to have cars works.

But hey I'm more of a carrot than a stick guy.

Where I live in Cabbagetown you can live 80% of the week on bicycle, walking, transit. I take TTC to/from work each day. But with 2 young kids there are times you need a car or the outting would be an ENORMOUS hassle. I'd never want to live somewhere where I had to have a car for everything (i.e. suburbs) but likewise I wouldn't buy where I was actively discouraged from driving those 20% of a time things.

I’m not advocating for people to not have a car - I’m advocating for a car-adjacent as opposed to a car-centric lifestyle. (BTW, I realize that my post was worded badly on this point.)

We cannot build neighborhoods of any density and plan for people to be using a car to get to work, buy groceries, etc. It just won’t work. But, I think we can nudge people to avoid buying a car for as long as possible, or use a car as sparingly as possible. And to that point, you need schools, groceries, parks and at least some entertainment nearby and you need good, frequent transit.

Where I live in Cabbagetown you can live 80% of the week on bicycle, walking, transit. I take TTC to/from work each day. But with 2 young kids there are times you need a car or the outting would be an ENORMOUS hassle. I'd never want to live somewhere where I had to have a car for everything (i.e. suburbs) but likewise I wouldn't buy where I was actively discouraged from driving those 20% of a time things.

I’m in the same boat, and totally get that. But then again, sounds like you’re living what I’m advocating for: a car-adjacent lifestyle. That’s awesome!

 

[Northern Light]

I’m torn on this. I think there’s a case to be made that we could allow taller street walls than you advocate for. Plenty of older parts of dense US cities have high street walls and narrow streets - and people love them!

I think you need to find me examples we can discuss. Don't get me wrong, there are attractive mews and such...........but, well, lets take this 6M wide street in Boston:

Source: https://amateurplanner.blogspot.com/2016/02/there-has-been-lot-of-discussion-in.html

The sidewalks are not accessible to those with mobility aids /wheelchairs / strollers. It's too narrow.

There are no trees, and none will grow here, but even if they could, there wouldn't be a road at all anymore.

Toronto Fire would definitely balk.

Is it cute, sure, though I like my trees, but to be clear there are some very real tradeoffs.

****

From the same site as above:

ROW has trees, works for me....but, but.....

First, you have a 3-4s street wall and the ROW has now stretched to 11M wide. But notice the sidewalk with trees is again impassable to anyone with a stroller/wheelchair etc. They would have to walk in the street. Now imagine snowbanks.

****

I think it's important to find real world examples that aren't simply a postcard, and you then have to find solutions to the challenges I've noted.

Was the increase in cars proportionate to the increase in people? If you increased density by 20% and vehicular traffic by 10% I would…be ok with that. The real question is whether there’s a differential between density increase and vehicular increase, and how much do we anticipate that to be? If each additional person results in an additional car - that’s bad.

LV is an unending traffic jam in rush hours and at other busy times. It's not pleasant for pedestrians or cyclists. I don't think making a community unlivable and hoping people will change their behavior to make it livable is reasonable. We've seen no evidence that that works.

Aren’t the first 3 a function of zoning and what the city compels developers to do? (The employment piece is very very hard)

Zoning can't compel a grocery store, though it may, arguably compel a grocery-store ready space.

A school is a function of setting aside / buying (if necessary) the required land and the province approving and funding its construction (Elementary/HS)

Post-secondary is getting a college/uni to agree to provide a campus, and getting funding for same. (which will not come from the City)

Employment lands are a zoning thing. But, as Scarborough and Northyork DT's have shown, simply mandating the provision office doesn't make it work at any scale.

 

[hawc]

I like that. Car adjacent. I think I can get onboard with this.

 

[xmyth_]

Just finding it hilarious that folks will froth at the mouth if we’re not building 45 storeys, 2m apart, no podium setback, “affordable housing crisis” after all. But be like, “nah, another dealership will be fine”

We built an island with three ways off, but one way is across a 900yo bascule bridge run by a troll who demands only the rarest of antique European bridge parts to keep it running, and is there any mandate for retail space designed for a grocery tenant? Nah, we ain’t there yet - but we’re gonna approve a car dealership.

Well, there’s transit funding right? Noooo, but if you need to buy a car…well are the cars affordable? Hrm, about that…

I need to find a way to give the old Go Kart track historical designation. Does anyone know any historical figures who didn’t do something terrible who also liked go karts? Steve Stavro had to take a whirl at some point right? We liking Stavro these days? The Knob Hill Farms Memorial Historical Go-Kart track. Big brass statue of a Knob Hill Farms basket in the middle?

 

[hawc]

We built an island with three ways off, but one way is across a 900yo bascule bridge run by a troll who demands only the rarest of antique European bridge parts to keep it running.

Post of the week.

 

[reinventingthewheel]

Just finding it hilarious that folks will froth at the mouth if we’re not building 45 storeys, 2m apart, no podium setback, “affordable housing crisis” after all. But be like, “nah, another dealership will be fine”

We built an island with three ways off, but one way is across a 900yo bascule bridge run by a troll who demands only the rarest of antique European bridge parts to keep it running, and is there any mandate for retail space designed for a grocery tenant? Nah, we ain’t there yet - but we’re gonna approve a car dealership.

Well, there’s transit funding right? Noooo, but if you need to buy a car…well are the cars affordable? Hrm, about that…

In all fairness, this new Porsche dealership will not be on the island and the current dealership is occupying part of the Quayside site, their lease will be terminated there eventually. At this early stage, committing to move a luxury car dealership a couple kilometres has a much smaller associated risk than committing to open a new grocery store.

There will likely be some useful retail on Villiers eventually, but prospective investors are not sold on the place yet. There’s no local population of customers for now, one can only bank on rough population projections and with no indication when those numbers will be reached. As for non-local customers, there is poor transit access and zoning here probably won’t allow for a significant amount of customer parking. Nothing about this investment is appealing right now.