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

We have one kid and live a very car-adjacent lifestyle. In fact, last year I didn't turn on my car for such a long time that the battery died completely and CAA had to squeeze their way into my parking garage to get me going again. But there are very few places in Toronto where you can do that (St. Lawrence is one, thanks to the King streetcar and subway proximity).

I wish there were more, and better transit and bike lanes would enable that in some places, but you can't really do it in a small community with six blocks that is not walkable to any other part of the city, unless you provide really great transit in and out. The WELRT may be that eventually, but nobody will move there without a car until it's built (just like East Bayfront today).

At Bloor and Dufferin now, we're still pretty car-adjacent (I've probably driven to 5 places in the last month and a half) but it's not as easy.
 
hawc said:
Yeah it's interesting to think what we still use the car for...

Taking kids to Science Centre
Grocery run for heavy items (milk, OJ, Kitty Litter, Detergent ect)
Taking kids to doctor appointments
Taking kids to friends birthday parties at weird places.
Taking kids to sportsfields and parks
Going to beach, RC Harris, Scarborough Bluffs etc
Going somewhere fancy dressed nice
Really rainy days, really snowy days
Home Depot or Best Buy shopping

I guess you could find a way around all of these things through a combination of home delivery, uber or convoluted transit rides, but there are just some things that are undeniably easier by car. For everything else there's TTC/Bike/Walking
Click to expand...
Without the kids part, I've done all those without needing to use a gas guzzler. So speak for yourself?
 
Some plantings along Commissioners.

PXL_20240619_220751306.jpg
PXL_20240619_220637585.jpg
 
Hasn't Porsche moved like...3 times in 3 years? Clearly these buildings are designated to the waste bin of history quite quickly. It's a quick and dirty source of cash flow for whomever owns the land, otherwise known as the highest and best use on an interim basis. I wouldn't worry about this so long as land use regulations allow for more there. It will be a premium property at some point and the car dealership will be replaced.

@Northern Light, those photos you posted must be Back Bay or Beacon Hill. I have some family living there which makes it recognizable. Those streets are really nice, but certainly not up to today's standards from a mobility perspective. Still, those old areas are very charming, if impractical today.
 
UrbanAffair said:
@Northern Light, those photos you posted must be Back Bay or Beacon Hill. I have some family living there which makes it recognizable. Those streets are really nice, but certainly not up to today's standards from a mobility perspective. Still, those old areas are very charming, if impractical today.
Click to expand...

The treeless one is from the North End; the second is indeed from Beacon Hill!

***

I agree the latter one in particular has its charm; though, beyond not meeting a number of contemporary standards, it also has relatively short street walls in the 3-4s range, which is what I've pointed out in the past, you couldn't grow those on streets with 6s steetwalls for the most part, and certainly not all if there were also towers blocking the southern sun.

I'm all pro density but I don't think many posters really grasp how dense what's proposed is, or what the trade-offs are to achieve different density or built-form, or street-grid and create a livable community.

Lets look at this.

Boston's North End has a density of 10, 687 per km2.
Boston's Beacon Hill has a density of is ~11,500 per km2

Villiers is proposed to house ~13,000 people (9000units) in 22ha which is 0.22km2 (this includes the right-of-way space) that's a density of 59,000 per km2 or roughly 6x the density of those narrow street neighbourhoods.
 
Last edited:
Agreed, 7.7 times density is a decently sized tower. Anything more and you're creating an island off of the coast of Manhattan. Personally, I find very dense areas to be less desirable to mid level density. (But I am totally down with reforming the yellowbelt in Toronto to midscale to boost supply.) Anyway, sorry for going a bit OT. Back to discussing cars and great lakes shipping channels.
 
Are car dealerships temporary? I dunno. The one at Front & Trinity, which ended up taking over the Green P “temporarily” years ago seems pretty comfortable where they’re at. The actual dealership left for the DVP some time ago but still stores their stock there. I guess they must make waaaay more money storing used cars there than selling the land for development. The dealership on Mark st hasn’t gone anywhere.

Seriously tho- are car lots some super sacred, blind spot for folks? Y’all literally argued about how much height we could get on Villier’s due to flight path restrictions because this project is sooooo key to Canada’s entire affordable housing plan - but can’t muster a weak fart of concern over wasting a metre of land for luxury cars? I don’t… I mean…

That being said, and maybe it’s just Thursday- but I’m starting to get a sinking feeling about Villier’s. WT has been great, but I feel like there’s been so much attention to this that there’s too many people involved and we’re getting a horse designed by committee. Toronto has enough issues just planning a couple city blocks, nevermind on a tiny island. Brute force density in the immediate area will squeeze some life through it but to what end? I imagine we’ll celebrate whatever comes when it does, but worry about ten years out.

Can someone just Sim City these plans and let us know how it turns out?
 
hawc said:
Uh oh! Are you calling it a future St. James Town already?

😆 ;)
Click to expand...
St. James Town happened when what- money and community investment pulled out over time because folks didn’t want to live there?

Whether Villiers gets thicc with density, or keeps the world-ending two lane streets 🙄 I think the unique properties of the project might make it tough to succeed.

I could see it having a bit of hotel appeal- wherein folks start living there, enjoying everything in the short term, but after playing things out for a year- some of the impracticality starts to wear.

It will probably sound stupid, and by all means dunk away on me, but I think we’re understating the impact of actually being an island.

I think whatever we build, ends up dramatically changing 10yrs out because we won’t get it right the first time. It’ll be the Eaton Centre Nordstrom’s of new communities.
 
Love the passion in this thread! Despise the apathy to research from some of you lot. (Take it lightly -- the same can be said about many UTers, whom I would encourage to poke around more on the City's AIC)

For everyone's benefit, let me bring forward some info from the 190 Cherry SPA application:
View attachment 574024
Polson Quay is identified as a PIC Mixed- Use District, which in addition to having a minimum GFA requirement for PIC Core uses, is planned to accommodate residential uses. The Secondary Plan provides direction on how residential uses can be included in the future subject to detailed technical study through the precinct planning process concurrent with rezoning. Residential uses are potentially sensitive to existing uses in the Precinct.

The Proposed Development will accommodate compatible uses and eventually PIC Core uses on the retained surface parking area. In the interim it will introduce a contemporary ‘destination dealership’ which does not constitute a sensitive land use.
Click to expand...
Over the long term, the building provides a flexible and adaptable design able to accommodate PIC uses with relative ease. At the same time, it could be removed to make way for future PIC uses as well as residential.
Click to expand...
[...] delivering 75 to 100 high-quality jobs and economic development opportunities to the Port Lands.
Click to expand...
Overall, the Proposed Development provides a significant improvement to existing conditions on the Subject Site and adheres to the general intent of the Port Lands OPM design guidelines and policies for new development. Polson Quay contains a unique mix of existing land uses including surface parking, heritage buildings, commercial and industrial uses. While Polson Quay is planned to accommodate a mix of PIC Core and residential uses the Port Lands OPM recognizes existing entertainment uses and industrial uses. The Proposed Development represents the first new development in Polson Quay, replacing surface parking, and provides a pedestrian-scaled streetwall adjacent to Polson and Cherry Streets featuring extensive glazing and landscaped setbacks. It will make a striking and engaging addition for others to follow.
Click to expand...

A few notes:
  • This is not Villiers Island (🤯), this is Polson Quay. If Villiers is, let's say, 5-8 years from being built up, Polson is at least 10 years away. That's long enough for Porsche to justify building this and knocking it down later, they (or rather "the applicant") have admitted it could be removed in the future -- if we are concerned about built-form in 10 years, there's no justifiable reason to deny this land use for the next 10 years
  • Considering existing land use (surface parking), employment/economic opportunity, and built-form direction from the City's Official and Secondary Plans this is an acceptable land use. It can be revisited when a Precinct Plan is developed for Polson
  • While there is less utility in a luxury dealership than most retail, it will certainly generate fewer car trips (reduced traffic impact) so long as there are no local residents -- that is to say trips to retail in this location would predominantly be by car if it is outside of a comfortable walking/biking distance
  • The green roof renders are an example of the "adaptable design", they aren't trying to fool anyone. It will be a roof for parking to begin, room for adjustment later
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top