Toronto Wellesley on the Park | 194.15m | 60s | Lanterra | KPMB

Clearly some evidence and context is needed. In addition, I doubt any of the naysayers actually live in the neighbourhood, so they may not fully understand what is happening on the ground here. I'll reiterate what has been said before.

This is a small site. For reference, it is about 1/5 the size of Washington Square Park in Manhattan.

This is the last possible site in Canada's urban centre to provide a functional, green, recreation space. This neighbourhood has seen continual growth and there is no reason to think it will stop.

The area bounded by Davenport-Church-Queen-University has experienced unprecedented growth over the past 5 years. This area grew from 32,075 (2007) to 39,827
(2012) for a change of 24.17%. Conservative estimates predict 19% growth by 2022.

Little to no outdoor recreational or green space space has been added to match growth, with greenfield development reducing green space.

According to the provincial growth plan, Places to Grow (2006): Urban growth centres will be planned to achieve, by 2031 or earlier, a minimum gross density target of 400 residents and jobs combined per hectare for each of the urban growth centres in the City of Toronto.

Current density is 708 residents and jobs per hectare (source: City of Toronto) and is expected to increase to approximately 775 residents and jobs perhectare by 2022.

This area is not dense? Hilarious.

FACTS: There are currently over 45 high-rise residential buildings in the Davenport-Church-Queen-University area. There are 11 high-rise residential buildings currently under construction, an additional 9 buildings proposed and 6 mixed use high-rise towers under development. This totals an additional 8731 units and growing.

There is currently twice the prescribed density here, 20 years early.

Let's look at some facts about park space.

FACTS: The City of Toronto has the lowest allocation of park space per person in Canada. There is an average of 0.1hectares of park space/1000 people in the Davenport-Church-Queen-University area (total 4.29hectares). Each person is serviced by 0.09sq. meters of park space in this area. This number will only decrease as additional residential units are constructed.

FACTS: New York City has nearly twice as much green space per person at 23.1 metres squared per person compared to Toronto’s 12.6 meters squared per person. (Planning
Institute of Colima) Vancouver has been in the process of building 8 downtown parks over the past 15 years. (City of Vancouver)
 
Last edited:
prettyflamingo said:
No more condos! People need a community park!
Click to expand...

Coming back from NYC this past weekend, I'd rather have this (below) than another community park. But hey, that's just me!

IMG_1770.jpg
 
Vancouver isn't a fair comparison. Most of the park expansion took place in essentially land fill &/or formerly industrial waterfront lands. With condos of course being built around them.

If Toronto's condo market slows, so too will population growth.

The site in particular could use a small square or rooftop-style open space (above a school perhaps?) but what it really needs is intense urban streetwall. That doesn't mean 100s. 10s would be about ideal here. The area feels very suburban currently.

A better way to create more greenspace would be to narrow Bay St and add a wide tree canopy sidewalk along its length.

That being said, when I find the time, I'm going to do my magic & whip up a massing study that may please the nimbies....;)
 
Last edited:
greenleaf said:
Clearly some evidence and context is needed. In addition, I doubt any of the naysayers actually live in the neighbourhood, so they may not fully understand what is happening on the ground here. I'll reiterate what has been said before. <snip snip>
Click to expand...

You make an excellent argument greenleaf. It was others making this same pitch that won me over on a neighbourhood FB discussion so I'm absolutely on board with trying to get this property as a park instead of it being developed, but I'm afraid that I'm not very optimistic at this point.
 
I think anytime Torontonians can claim parkland it is a win for the people. What opportunities like this will we have in the future? (answer: none) There are very few available lots left in this area.
 
Last edited:
urbandreamer said:
The site in particular could use a small square or rooftop-style open space (above a school perhaps?) but what it really needs is intense urban streetwall. That doesn't mean 100s. 10s would be about ideal here. The area feels very suburban currently.
Click to expand...

As i42 said, some kind of skinny 2s building along Wellesley could work here - a combo of a park warming house with a rooftop resto/bar patio (with a killer view looking south) and parking garage in/out, and another small eatery or bike shop, or something along those lines.
 
and a school. downtown is in desperate needs of schools, and it would be hard to ignore it especially on a lot this size. (plenty of space to put a school and a park)
 
I was browsing UT and I came across this model, I felt it showed the context of the space nicely (if you can spot it). There will be tremendous future growth immediately around this site in years to come. With Burano, Muranos, 501 Yonge, 5 St Joseph, Britt, 1001 Bay, the parking lot E of Yonge & Wellesley and now 587-599 Yonge too.

to003.jpg
 
There will be a ton of growth along Yonge Street over the next decade or so. Even in a down market, people (and investors) will buy what they view to be A-List material--the subway, universities, shops.

Walking up Yonge Street the other day made me realize that overall, the area is due for massive change. It really is quite embarrassing considering how much the MSM hypes the street to ROC.
 
cruzin4u said:
Coming back from NYC this past weekend, I'd rather have this (below) than another community park. But hey, that's just me!
Click to expand...

yep. but even in that photo, Bryant park is almost immediately to the south, so NYC has that perfect balance.. not to mention, the views from their parks are much better.

Let's say this community park is built, it's not a great view and a pretty awkward location. (that is until the development on Yonge is complete)
 
^Yeah the main reason a park here makes little sense is just how ugly the surroundings are. The buildings lining Bay Street are possibly the ugliest in the city. The blank walls and service entrances around here are depressing.

I have several concepts I'm working on. I think the area needs innovative stunning architecture and innovative stunning greenspace. Can NimbyTect achieve both?
 
Aren't the ugly Bay St buildings north of St. Joseph around U condos? I don't mind the ones at the proposed park, they are nothing special, but far from "the ugliest in the city".
 
urbandreamer said:
^Yeah the main reason a park here makes little sense is just how ugly the surroundings are. The buildings lining Bay Street are possibly the ugliest in the city. The blank walls and service entrances around here are depressing.

I have several concepts I'm working on. I think the area needs innovative stunning architecture and innovative stunning greenspace. Can NimbyTect achieve both?
Click to expand...

Upper Bay Street has come a long way in a short period of time, see the Muranos, Burano, Sick Kids Research, Ryerson, Two City Hall, Four Seasons, Lumiere and we'll see what happens with the possible government building at Grosvenor & Bay, U Condos & the proposal for where Bistro 990 & the parking lot are. Not to mention there were some great buildings there before.

The plan for the park isn't just green space either, KYT is talking of a community centre, daycare centre, some retail and such so to my mind it would make sense to build those along St. Luke Lane to hide the back of the Yonge Street shops.
 
^Ok well NimbyTect listened to the ...um, nimbies...and if this is what you want, let me know.:)

nimbytect26august2012st.png


Basic massing study. The green building would be the school/daycare/community centre running parallel to St Luke Lane. (St Luke Lane itself would be transformed into a treelined redbrick walkway closed to traffic.) The quad/square faces the Y's open space across the street. The red brick L-shaped building combines TCHC rent-geared-to-income homes with ground level artist studios/shops/cafes. The idea is an intimate square that blocks the view of the hideous Bay Club condo alley. Ideally, I'd like to combine this site with the Y site and create one brand new Y/school/daycare/etc with higher density housing and reserve the entire current Y site as the green space. I'm thinking building height would be around 10s max but more like 6-8s.

Or, the uses of each building could be flipped. The red L-building being the school/etc and the green building the commercial/residential/etc. May make more sense I suppose, although keeping commercial along Wellesley is important I think.

What do the nimbies think?
 
Last edited:
I'm not a NIMBY however the massing works along St. Luke Lane but no more than 3s max to allow sun to penetrate the park. No housing, perhaps just some retail along Wellesley Street and even that I'm not personally crazy about. If the plans get overly grand there's not a whole lot of park left and then they may as well just develop it with some green space along Breadalbane St. Compare this property to Queen's Park, it's really not that large of a plot at all.
I wonder who truly owns that drop-off area there, if it is part of Morguard/Opera Place's property or was part of their property?

park.jpg
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top