Toronto West Don Lands: Blocks 17 & 26 | 141m | 43s | Aspen Ridge | Core Architects

lomeri said:
Toronto needs more mid rise neighborhoods. Extreme density and single/semi detached housing can’t be the only available options in the city.
Click to expand...

Agreed with your second point, but thanks to the bubble - midrise is not profitable for developers. Or the units will be overpriced.
 
AlexBozikovic said:
Two things to add:

1) The negative impact of this, if any, is unclear. Just because certain community benefits aren’t required in the MZO, that doesn't mean the province won’t require them. The minister promised 30% affordable housing in all these projects. They might break this promise. But they might not.
2) The west Don lands is being underbuilt. The existing master plan is far from perfect. (it’s mid rise, with huge gaps between the buildings and wide streets, achieving middling density.) This absolutely is a place where there should be tall towers.
Click to expand...

I have to say I’m a bit baffled by the assertion that the the WDL is “underdeveloped”. Uniform 12-14 story buildings with point towers on the periphery, where there is no nearby higher-order public transit, is hardly low density, especially considering that nothing existed here before. 90% of all European cities would agree.

Also, there are not “huge gaps between the buildings”. All the roads are one way (with some street parking), with bike lanes, generous sidewalks, and room for planting / trees. The actual room for cars is probably less than Queen Street. From the outset, Front Street was conceived as a grand pedestrian boulevard with room for art and as a substitute form of park space. Why, where Toronto is so deficient in these amenities, are we arguing against this?

I am sitting on Front Street now and there is no traffic, families are biking in safety on the boulevard, people are sitting on unshadowed and protected patios, walking their dogs and visiting Corktown Common. Isn’t this exactly what we want and deserve, instead of Liberty Village? The neighbourhood is filling in quickly and I am sure it will be busy, vibrant, and beautiful in time.
 
mcornett said:
Uniform 12-14 story buildings with point towers on the periphery, where there is no nearby higher-order public transit, is hardly low density, especially considering that nothing existed here before. 90% of all European cities would agree.
Click to expand...
Berlin; Barcelona; West Don Lands.
D71F44ED-5AB9-4FAE-A240-09D69CE11B8F.jpeg 6CEF9B8C-88A3-4904-9394-3CF71C8930E6.jpeg 4B90AF76-E595-4CBC-95BB-B612B867B67D.jpeg
 
AlexBozikovic said:
Berlin; Barcelona; West Don Lands.
View attachment 280199 View attachment 280198 View attachment 280200
Click to expand...

A disingenuous comparison.

Most of those 'blank' spots in the WDL are future development.

The average height is greater in WDL than in either of the other 2 pictures.

Yes, there is some excess space on roads in the WDL, that is not affected in anyway by the MZOs

Also, the shots of Berlin and Barcelona reveal a veritable absence of any park space and are terrible from a climate-change perspective for the near universal hardscapes and lack of green roofs.
 
Last edited:
Another note here on high-density and affordability.

The evidence is clear from construction costs that as housing creeps above the mid-20s in floor counts, the cost of building per ft2 rises.

It also keeps climbing the higher you go.

While, in some instances, this may be offset by amortizing land costs over more units, it generally does not produce greater affordability in terms of housing.

It certainly doesn't when the province is the landowner and can charge whatever it sees fit for the land.

If the goal were maximum affordability, it can just let the land go for $1 per year + property taxes to the bidder creating the most affordable units.

That would be a far more effective solution.
 
AlexBozikovic said:
Berlin; Barcelona; West Don Lands.
View attachment 280199 View attachment 280198 View attachment 280200
Click to expand...

At a more fundamental level - I think bemoaning WDL is not of sufficient density is a distraction when we have the vast portion of the city-region basically impervious to *any* significant increase in density. That's the elephant in the room and the real issue facing planning in the GTA. Like how much of Toronto can one even build like L'Eixample (even compared to Cerda's original vision, which is of lower density than what transpired) or even a WDL level of density? Having to cram density to any available site because low-rise residential is preferentially insulated against neighbourhood change and redevelopment basically enshrines this power imbalance.

AoD
 
Last edited:
AlvinofDiaspar said:
I think bemoaning WDL is not of sufficient density is a distraction when we have the vast portion of the city-region basically impervious to *any* significant increase in density. That's the elephant in the room and the real issue facing planning in the GTA.
AoD
Click to expand...
This is certainly true. I’ve been loudly making this point for years. But let’s be honest: we‘re largely stuck with the existing pattern, of concentrated density in a few places, for a long time to come. There’s no Haussmann coming to bulldoze Leslieville. Given that, we need to maximize the few opportunities for intensification that are available.

And really: we’re not talking about very high density here. The West Donlands plan originally would have put about 8000 people on 23 hectares. That (400 people per hectare) is roughly 20% less dense than central Paris. So: one piece of inner-suburban Paris, with tons of green space, surrounded by an ocean of houses. That’s how we should use a big site in downtown Toronto?

When people compare this (much less the “Avenues” buildings) to 19c neighbourhoods in western Europe, it’s bogus. Lot coverage and road widths (and mobility patterns) are dramatically different. Most importantly, that kind of urban form goes on for miles and miles. You can’t build one half-baked fragment of it and claim victory.
 
AlexBozikovic said:
This is certainly true. I’ve been loudly making this point for years. But let’s be honest: we‘re largely stuck with the existing pattern, of concentrated density in a few places, for a long time to come. There’s no Haussmann coming to bulldoze Leslieville. Given that, we need to maximize the few opportunities for intensification that are available.

And really: we’re not talking about very high density here. The West Donlands plan originally would have put about 8000 people on 23 hectares. That (400 people per hectare) is roughly 20% less dense than central Paris. So: one piece of inner-suburban Paris, with tons of green space, surrounded by an ocean of houses. That’s how we should use a big site in downtown Toronto?

When people compare this (much less the “Avenues” buildings) to 19c neighbourhoods in western Europe, it’s bogus. Lot coverage and road widths (and mobility patterns) are dramatically different. Most importantly, that kind of urban form goes on for miles and miles. You can’t build one half-baked fragment of it and claim victory.
Click to expand...

Which is why I am arguing that there is a fundamental inequity here - we are relying on a small proportion of areas in the cities to carry the growth for entire region. It's like b*tching at someone living in a 20s building saying that they are selfish and NIMBYesque for not wanting multiple 40s next door while doing the *shrug*, we can't do anything about those cute little houses and adding more density because "stable neighbourhoods". That's not my notion of equity and social solidarity - whereby we have loci of hyperintensity just so that we can maintain the status quo for the privileged (sic landed/housed). As long as we (the "royal" we) refused to enable urban development that would allow for miles and miles of 20s (or even 10s) buildings in the yellow belt - there is no victory to be had no matter what happens here. Also I have to wonder how much does this refusal to allow for meaningful intensification of the yellow belt actually warped land economics in the region.

As to WDL - my personal preference would be to increase the overall density of the district gently, not arbitrarily concentrate it all in one site (a sensitive one, at that).

AoD
 
Last edited:
Aren't all 3 developers already working on Block 20?
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top