Richmond Hill Richvale Village | ?m | 38s | Philmor | BNKC

Paclo

Paclo

Administrator
Staff member
Member Bio
Joined
Aug 25, 2020
Messages
2,850
Reaction score
13,569
Richvale Village: a proposed master-planned, mixed-use residential, commercial & public space development designed by BNKC for CTN Developments ranging from 4 to 38-storeys on the east side of Bathurst Street, north of Highway 7 and south of Ner Israel Drive in Richmond Hill's Richvale neighbourhood.

Conceptual plans from BNKC:
RH-MP-Sketch-1.png

RH-MP-Animated-Public-Realm.png

RH-MP-Character-Districts-2.png
RH-MP-Developing-the-Plan.png
RH-MP-Infrastructure-and-Sustainability.png


Concept brief, from BNKC:
Located at the intersection of Bathurst Street and Highway 7, and neighbouring the Richmond Hill Golf Course, Richvale Village is ideally situated for both commuters and those wishing to enjoy the well-established local amenities. A variety or building scales and a carefully considered series of public spaces will encourage the growth of a vibrant and diverse community that will develop over time. A series of distinct districts, each with its own character and scale, are linked through a continuous series of open spaces, boulevards and pedestrian ways. The community will offer a variety of experiences to a multi-generational community, and is intended to provide a rich environment for people of all age to live, work, and play. A fine-grained street network will strengthen the connection between the public and private realms, while promoting various modes of travel. The village square, located in the heart of the development, will provide a destination and gathering space for the community.

The site is structured around a major parkland and open space network that spreads across the whole site and connects to the existing woodlands and Golf Course. The public realm will serve to create a dynamic and vibrant community focused on the pedestrian experience connected by privately owned public space and trails and pathways that are weaved throughout the site.

A new connector will serve as a major street connecting Hwy 7 to Bathurst through the site. Additionally, two streets connect from the 407 Transit Hub and from Bathurst to the heart of the site. The unique shape of the of the site allows for a mix of block structures created by the streets that will connect to the existing major connections as well as throughout the community and the Richmond Hill Golf Club.

To reduce vehicular dependency, the Richvale concept encourages transit and active transportation. The cycling network connects to existing cycling amenities within Richmond Hill along Bathurst and the major trail along Highway 7. The community is also designed to connect to the broader vehicular and transit network in addition to its pedestrian and bike paths.
Click to expand...

This site is on former Parkway Belt West lands. The Minister Zoning Order, filed as Ontario Regulation 474/73, was made in 1973 to implement the Parkway Belt West Plan. The Zoning Order generally only permits low impact land uses including agricultural uses, and accessory buildings, and structures that will be used for agricultural operations. In 2021, a request was made to remove these lands from the Parkway Belt West Plan designation and revoke the Minister’s Zoning Order, filed as Ontario Regulation 474/73, from the subject lands to facilitate future development. Proposal to develop the lands for mixed use, residential and/or commercial in accordance with the proposed Major Transit Station Area (MTSA) and associated policies identified by the Region of York. This amendment was granted in March 2022, applying to the following lands:
ERO_PublicNotice_8755BathurstStreet_20220126.jpg
 
Which MTSA is this land supposed to be within? GO Langstaff station? This has got to be more than 800 metres from it.

EDIT: No, not that one. There is a or will be BRT station here, and therefore an MTSA. The BRT route feeds into the Richmond Hill/Langstaff Gateway MTSA.

42
 
interchange42 said:
Which MTSA is this land supposed to be within? GO Langstaff station? This has got to be more than 800 metres from it.

EDIT: No, not that one. There is a or will be BRT station here, and therefore an MTSA. The BRT route feeds into the Richmond Hill/Langstaff Gateway MTSA.

42
Click to expand...
Highway 7 should have an elevated subway line, like the SkyTrain in Vancouver. Same route as the BRT, the right of way is already there. Won't dive too far into that here but I'm putting it out there.
 
Islington Express Bus said:
As a lover of housing and hater of golf and golf courses, this is my kind of development.
Click to expand...
I would gladly see redevelopment of every public and private golf course in the GTA that is reasonably close to transit (for example, near York Mills subway, or the future LRT station at Eglinton and Jane). I know that many of them are made up in large part of a flood plain, but then I'd still cram as many towers as I could onto the small area that can be built on (I'm guessing the parking lots and clubhouses) and turn the rest into a public park - especially when it helps connect the rest of the ravine park system...the Flemington Golf Course proposal is a great example of that
 
Last edited:
ben.thebean1 said:
Highway 7 should have an elevated subway line, like the SkyTrain in Vancouver. Same route as the BRT, the right of way is already there. Won't dive too far into that here but I'm putting it out there.
Click to expand...
It took many years to build BRT. And for all I see, it's not heavily used.
 
interchange42 said:
Which MTSA is this land supposed to be within? GO Langstaff station? This has got to be more than 800 metres from it.

EDIT: No, not that one. There is a or will be BRT station here, and therefore an MTSA. The BRT route feeds into the Richmond Hill/Langstaff Gateway MTSA.

42
Click to expand...
There is a VIVA BRT stop at Bathurst Street and the 407 connector. The site of this proposal is those trees in the background.

1691678389273.png
 
DrillBit said:
It took many years to build BRT. And for all I see, it's not heavily used.
Click to expand...
York Region is not adequately funding YRT, and it has generally cut service in response to low ridership, and then cut service again in response to lower ridership, etc.

42
 
I mean to be fair, York Region also built a multi-million dollar BRT station here which is in the middle of what is effectively a freeway interchange and walkable from literally just about nothing other than a handful of large houses which are unlikely to generate many transit riders. It's not a surprise it's not getting used.
 
DrillBit said:
It took many years to build BRT. And for all I see, it's not heavily used.
Click to expand...

But what if - and hear me out here - the idea wasn't necessarily that it would have huge ridership on Day One but that in the near future the mere presence of the BRT would create intensification around the stations (like, say, one beside a golf course that's a 5-minute bus ride from a new subway station) and then it would generate a long-term change in ridership, the built form of the region and overall travel patterns?

I mean, could there be a better example of this than this otherwise-rando station, located on what amounts to a highway off-ramp?

Here's the MSTA mapping, BTW. A good chunk of it is the golf course, though I recall an earlier draft that included some already-developed lands west of Bathurst.
1691682260191.png
 
Last edited:
"Golf courses are all in flood plains and can't be redeveloped" is generally a massive cope from the golfies. Truth is it varies from course to course.

Dentonia, for example, is right next to a subway station and the majority of its land is not in a floodplain.
 
Islington Express Bus said:
"Golf courses are all in flood plains and can't be redeveloped" is generally a massive cope from the golfies. Truth is it varies from course to course.

Dentonia, for example, is right next to a subway station and the majority of its land is not in a floodplain.
Click to expand...
While that statement might be generally true, I’ve always felt that once you build a golf course, the “human impact” on the ecosystem has taken root. Unless the course is smack-dab in the middle of a ravine (and many are, to be fair) about 30-50% if any given golf course can and should be fair game to be redeveloped with minimal further risk to the environment.

There is room to debate here whether golf courses that are within “protected farmland” (NOT other designations, including river flood basins) should be fair game too. Not to sound like Ford here, but the protection of that farmland is to protect productive agriculture and contain sprawl. Golf courses are not agricultural and imo are a sort of pre-sprawl; it doesn't justify the aims of protection where the sole prerequisite does not exist. I would likewise advocate for intensification in, say, Aurora subdivisions even though they are within the Oak Ridges moraine. The damage is done, so let’s make some lemonade.

In any case, I hope people see my point here that Golf courses are private and (at least partially) developed lands in some capacities closer to the impact of low density urban development than protected ecologies, public parks or open spaces. By arguing they are physically closer to the latter precludes the relationship society has with these now-enshrined private places, which as-is contradicts the publicly-minded protections they sit within. Lets stop pretending they are ‘natural enough’. Either make those of contention so, or allow appropriate redevelopment.

Edit: I have worked at a golf course for most of my life. I know the relationship society has with these places quite well, even if not the exact policy relationship. I am not saying to get rid of them all, but their true nature is not worthy of the heavy designations underneath them.
 
Unless they drastically cut parking spots there is no way more than 10% of the residents are going to end up using (the very infrequent) transit around the area (especially if existing ridership on the Orange BRT means anything - tons of condos at VMC and everyone in them just drives)

I wonder if the cycleway plan for Bathurst will get taken up by the City and expanded northwards, always felt as though it's been needed
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top