Toronto Nordic Condos | 40.3m | 12s | Collecdev-Markee | gh3

interchange42 said:
Every retailer must weigh the pros and cons of a location. Want parking? Don't open here.
Click to expand...

That can only go so far though, since the mantra seems to be that, in the vast majority of the city, parking is always bad.

The real problem with on-street parking is execution, not the parking itself. Most big cities allow on-street parking but do it in ways that improves traffic. Look at Barcelona or New York as a great example, where it's used to separate bike lanes from traffic on some major roads, and as a traffic-calming measure on minor roads (parked cars narrow the roadway and force cars to drive slower)
 
In much of suburban Toronto, like here, the only arterials are found in a 2 km square(ish) grid. I wouldn't advise cutting down on the number of lanes on Wilson: you'd need more through roads as alternates to make that feasible out here. If there's room in the right-of-way to provide bike lanes and a row of parking, then bike lanes come first for me, a row of protective parking second. (You can protect bike lanes without parked cars if there isn't enough room for parking.)

42
 
I'm definitely with the City here. Far too dense!

It's not like there's a subway station +/-300m away. Oh wait...

Wilson.JPG
 

Attachments

  • Wilson.JPG
    Wilson.JPG
    404.1 KB · Views: 569
ADRM said:
Ugh: "concern with the overall density of the proposal." So stupid.
Click to expand...

I'd be more concerned about the extremely long, repetitive street wall that would be imposed on Wilson. This is exactly the opposite of the narrow building facades proposed for the Honest Ed's redevelopment, which is way more visually interesting.



Screen Shot 2017-02-13 at 12.33.59 PM.png
 

Attachments

  • Screen Shot 2017-02-13 at 12.33.59 PM.png
    Screen Shot 2017-02-13 at 12.33.59 PM.png
    318.7 KB · Views: 686
Those days of two-four floor buildings on major streets are over. If you like those areas move there, pray for no development and become a nimby
 
while I agree the City's notion of the proposal being too dense is flawed (given proximity to transit), I can however appreciate the need to have a better massing transition that steps down towards the single detached homes abutting to the north of the site (and assess shadow impact)
 
salsa said:
I'd be more concerned about the extremely long, repetitive street wall that would be imposed on Wilson. This is exactly the opposite of the narrow building facades proposed for the Honest Ed's redevelopment, which is way more visually interesting.
Click to expand...

Wilson and Allen Road is not Bathurst and Bloor.
 
ShonTron said:
"Hey, it's the suburbs - who cares about the built form!"

I disagree with the city's objections to density (given proximity to transit and precedent of the condos to the immediate south) , but the monolithic street wall could be improved.
Click to expand...

I'm not defending this because I don't care about the suburbs, I'm defending it because I think it's a pretty great design considering the location, and is very similar to what you see at the ends of transit lines in European cities.

Do you think that there are enough pedestrians at this intersection to support fine-grain retail like at Bathurst and Bloor? A faux-density façade covering big box stores would look rather silly.
 
FWIW - there's not a lot of retail proposed in the project. Only a 5,000sf unit in the larger building and 2 smaller retail units (1200sf-ish each) in the other building.

A good bit of the buildings amenity space is on the GF
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top