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

This makes me even more frustrated that the Waterfront East LRT is dragging and there wasn't an OL station closer to the Portlands.

And it's unfortunate that things are the way they are; but it's good that you recognize the disconnect.

The density and the transit should be closely tied.

It's not just a subway for everyone, LOL; but it is understanding when the capacity, the speed and the routing justify same. (and/or more LRT, or BRT or w/e) and/or the density needs to go somewhere else, where the higher-order transit is located.
 
One example of something that may help is the carsharing proposal that just passed committee. I think this might just shift 3-5 points of modal share within a couple of years and reduce car ownership rates.
I have to think that planning for car ownership similar to today in buildings that likely won't be occupied inside 15 years is a bit crazy. Nevermind uptake on car-sharing, autonomous ridehailing will come at some point, obviating the need for a lot of parking. At some point we need to be building this into our longer term planning. Or at least plan for adaptive reuse for all the underutilized parking.
 
I have to think that planning for car ownership similar to today in buildings that likely won't be occupied inside 15 years is a bit crazy. Nevermind uptake on car-sharing, autonomous ridehailing will come at some point, obviating the need for a lot of parking. At some point we need to be building this into our longer term planning. Or at least plan for adaptive reuse for all the underutilized parking.

We don't have the parking ratios being used in the modelling. I wouldn't presume they were based on a static suburban model of today, nor would I assume they are low as today's downtown numbers. But I simply don't have that information.

We need to know what modelling has been used and what the basis of it is.

A typical, prudent model would assume lower that nominal car ownership rates and driving rates than today, in similar circumstances, but not too aggressively. You need evidence that further shift can be achieved to model it.

A fair ask is to have a closer look at the underlying assumptions.

But let's be clear, one more pedestrianized street won't materially change local car demand. Better transit, and carsharing are key, along with high levels of local/remote employment and shopping.
 
Great conversation, everyone.

In my piece, I’m making several linked assumptions. Let me spell those out:

- It’s desirable to change the arrangement of buildings and streets on the site, breaking up the podiums into a larger number of smaller buildings, placed irregularly, including towers with no “podiums”
- streets and laneways take up a huge amount of the site, and if some of that land could be re-distributed, you could add significantly more density
- The urban design ideas that every building should address a street, and that the ROW should be as wide as the building is tall, are arbitrary and should be challenged
- The neighbourhood should be designed to determine transportation patterns, effectively forcing more active transportation and transit use by making it more difficult to drive and limiting parking. Across the city, 37% of commuters did not drive to work as of 2021. That number Is a majority downtown and it could be much higher here if the neighbourhood is shaped appropriately.

If this site was privately owned, and the right consultants were running it, they might be making many of these arguments and they would absolutely be getting more density. Many of these deep assumptions are fuzzy and, IMO, what we have seen in the existing Waterfront neighbourhoods suggests that a different approach is needed.
 
Great conversation, everyone.

In my piece, I’m making several linked assumptions. Let me spell those out:

- It’s desirable to change the arrangement of buildings and streets on the site, breaking up the podiums into a larger number of smaller buildings

This is reasonable enough; I'd even say I would prefer it; but, absent other changes results in a reduction in density.

, placed irregularly, including towers with no “podiums”

Towers w/o podiums or setbacks generally create extremely high and unpleasant winds at street level. There are some mitigation options, but you need wind going down the face of a building to deflect/dissipate.

- The urban design ideas that every building should address a street, and that the ROW should be as wide as the building is tall, are arbitrary and should be challenged

For clarity, there are no ROWs the size of 40s towers, the relationship of height to ROW is the height of the podium, or streetwall.

- The neighbourhood should be designed to determine transportation patterns, effectively forcing more active transportation and transit use by making it more difficult to drive and limiting parking. Across the city, 37% of commuters did not drive to work as of 2021. That number Is a majority downtown and it could be much higher here if the neighbourhood is shaped appropriately.

I'm fine w/the desired objective; but you can't simply use 'the stick' to get people on to transit or walking, you need the option to be desirable based on anticipated commuting patterns. The key to a high level of walking downtown is the number of people who work in offices a few blocks from their residence. The level of employment here is much lower and would not support that choice.

The key to higher transit modal share in the core is 2 or more subway lines within a short distance of most residences, along with the City's commuter rail hub.

The challenge here is that the higher-order transit (GO/Subway) will be no closer than East Harbour, or way over at the Corktown Station.

The distance to said transit would be ~700M at Broadview Extension and Commissioners and 1.7km at New Cherry Street and Commissioners.
Corktown Station would be ~1.4km to 2.2km away (assuming you made use of the proposed Keating Channel pedestrian bridge.

The WELRT is not an adequate substitute; the Broadview LRT could be quite a bit more helpful, provided it has an adequate service plan

****

For clarity, I would love a high transit modal share here, but the same or higher than downtown is not achievable based on the proposed employment and the proposed transit.
We could revisit this, but it would virtually scrap everything that's been done to date, delays aside, I'm not sure what a good solution on the transit side would look like, a one-station subway connection to the Ontario Line with transfer?


If this site was privately owned, and the right consultants were running it, they might be making many of these arguments and they would absolutely be getting more density. Many of these deep assumptions are fuzzy and, IMO, what we have seen in the existing Waterfront neighbourhoods suggests that a different approach is needed.

Again, Alex, this is just not true.

A density of over 50,000 per km2 is insanely high as it is...............You can re-do my math it won't get any different, this is much denser than St. James Town, which you have repeatedly said is too dense.

I think you're conflating this with the 'look' of density based on the ROWs of the roads; but the heights here pack enormous numbers of people in to these buildings.

While I don't think it's at all appropriate to include the river valley in the density calculation, even if you did, at 33 ha of land, the density here is proposed at 38,000 per km2.

* numbers above based on a very conservative 1.4 people per unit

Why would we want it to be even that high?

You regularly criticize crowding everyone into too few places in the City and yet you're advocating for exactly that here.
 
Last edited:
Again, Alex, this is just not true. A density of over 50,000 per km2 is insanely high as it is. Why would we want it to be even that high? You regularly criticize crowding everyone into too few places in the City and yet you're advocating for exactly that here.

Alex just hates cars. He wants us to be totally bicycle / transit dependent. Which is totally unrealistic for young families with kids, people with mobility issues, etc. Just as the suburbs suck because they are totally car dependent, what Alex is proposing is likewise idiotic because it would make people totally transit/bicycle dependent. The gorgeous thing about our city is that we are neither Manhattan/Tokyo/London nor are we Los Angeles. We have this beautiful mix of transit, bicycle, car options. I myself use all 3 all the time. But if you told me I can never load my kids into a car when needed or jump in the car on a horrible November day or that my only car option is Uber I'd move out of Toronto. Grown ups need cars now and then and it's nonsensical to try and engineer that out of a new development. It's about balance people. Balance. Say it with me... balance.
 
You seem to enjoy responding to my posts with lots of snark, I'm not sure why, but I know what I'm talking about and I can back it up.

Alex's post RIGHT before yours shared the same stats. As does the article. He specifies between what portion of the land is buildable and what is not. The map that you made was incorrect. Your assertion that his entire article should be dismissed as a result is laughable. Laughable statements bring it out in my, what can I say?

And you didn't know what you were talking about on several points that I called out to previous posts, so I no longer buy that.
 
More public transit use and less auto use is I think a desirable outcome (which I suspect is widely held on this site). For me, I am as concerned with building a community where resident's work commute can be primarily based on non-auto options with that daily life can be comfortably (and enthusiastically) lived without cars. Ie. can people living in this community go out for a coffee, hair-cut, groceries, window shopping and be able to do it without a car. Those are the kind of neighborhoods that appeal to not only the residents but the rest of the city.
 
The missing Cherry St. stop on the Ontario Line is not only a huge hit for the future residents of the island, but also for the massive tourist/visitor count that will want to see a properly dense and walkable and well designed neighbourhood/parks. Not to mention whatever the rest of the Port Lands eventually develops into. I can imagine a huge sprawling waterfront network of signature parks, beaches and attractions along the Cherry Beach waterfront all the way to the Leslie Spit.
 
And you didn't know what you were talking about on several points that I called out to previous posts, so I no longer buy that.

This is not true.

***

One of us has his opinions solicited by developers, planners and architects............ that person is not you.

***

You're going to ignore.
 
More public transit use and less auto use is I think a desirable outcome (which I suspect is widely held on this site). For me, I am as concerned with building a community where resident's work commute can be primarily based on non-auto options with that daily life can be comfortably (and enthusiastically) lived without cars. Ie. can people living in this community go out for a coffee, hair-cut, groceries, window shopping and be able to do it without a car. Those are the kind of neighborhoods that appeal to not only the residents but the rest of the city.

I share this view.

But we simply haven't put the the employment numbers or the transit capacity into this community concept to support the downtown-level of non-auto commuting.

To do that now........is to re-think everything. This seems a bit late in the process.

I would point out, the boost in residential density many lobbied for actually increases auto-based commutes.

This is because it reduces the number of local jobs to residents because the number of jobs are not commensurately increasing.
 
More public transit use and less auto use is I think a desirable outcome (which I suspect is widely held on this site). For me, I am as concerned with building a community where resident's work commute can be primarily based on non-auto options with that daily life can be comfortably (and enthusiastically) lived without cars. Ie. can people living in this community go out for a coffee, hair-cut, groceries, window shopping and be able to do it without a car. Those are the kind of neighborhoods that appeal to not only the residents but the rest of the city.
The question also becomes can they do that with a family or dependents in tow? So a self contained environment that's efficiently accessible by public transit would be most desirable here....with or without the stroads.
 
The missing Cherry St. stop on the Ontario Line is not only a huge hit for the future residents of the island, but also for the massive tourist/visitor count that will want to see a properly dense and walkable and well designed neighbourhood/parks. Not to mention whatever the rest of the Port Lands eventually develops into. I can imagine a huge sprawling waterfront network of signature parks, beaches and attractions along the Cherry Beach waterfront all the way to the Leslie Spit.
I tend to agree that not providing a Cherry St OL station not only under-serves the residents of the upcoming neighbourhood, but also makes the new public parks and amenities we spent a great deal of money creating more difficult to access for people across the city.
 
I tend to agree that not providing a Cherry St OL station not only under-serves the residents of the upcoming neighbourhood, but also makes the new public parks and amenities we spent a great deal of money creating more difficult to access for people across the city.

I also broadly concur........but....

Lets look at the alignment of the O/L in that spot:

1715005544125.png


Blue is underground, Lime Green is the joint-rail corridor with GO at-grade.

Space for a station and station building is certainly in short-supply w/that alignment. You're setting under the rail corridor by Cherry, and the ramp upwards begins almost immediately to the east, while to the west you're coming out of a curve. You also have two tracks/tunnels at constantly changing distance from one another.

@smallspy might be better able to speak about what is/is not feasible here.

****

Of course, all this could have been addressed with a different alignment. For instance, had the O/L remained underground, instead climbing into the rail corridor, you get a nice section of tangent (straight) track, on-grade for a station.

IF you're not locked into precisely following the trail corridor, it also becomes plausible to shift the line just a bit further south to the south, bringing it even closer to the Portlands.
 

Back
Top