Northern Light said:
0.1 acres ... is not really a usable green space.
Click to expand...

20m x 20m is enough for a patch of grass for dogs, a few trees, a couple benches, and a water fountain. Milner Parkette (Church and Asquith) is well used and about that size.

This park is under 0.06acres; just enough for pedestrians to get around the TTC entrance and streetcar shelter that takes up a huge chunk of space at a busy intesection.
 
Last edited:
rbt said:
20m x 20m is enough for a patch of grass for dogs, a few trees, a couple benches, and a water fountain. Not the worst thing for that busy intersection. Milner Parkette (Church and Asquith) is well used and about that size.

This park is under 0.06acres; just enough for pedestrians to get around the TTC entrance that takes up half the sidewalk.
Click to expand...

The TTC entrance should be enclosed within any new development on this corner.

That's a better solution to that problem.

****

In the immediate area, I would rather see this lot on Wood Street, used as public parking, and too close to an adjacent apartment to permit development acquired as park.

It would serve as a missing link in the parallel to Yonge series of parks.

Alexander Park is directly to the north.

1611938683063.png


The size is roughly 0.2ha or 0.5 acres; and given its lack of utility for development should be available for a reasonable price.
 
Northern Light said:
The office space is inadequate

The architecture regrettable.

And this is as stupid a spot for an on-site parkland dedication as I've seen; and that is saying something.

There are existing green spaces nearby that might benefit from a small addition.

There is no point to such an absurdly small space.

Worth adding, the land value next to may of those (existing) parks would be considerably lower in many cases, and therefore allow a large amount of space to be acquired.
Click to expand...
That sidewalk needs widening for people waiting for the streetcar and accessing the subway station. A POPS sure. It's just going to be concrete + pavers + benches + couple trees for functional practicality.

But as a parkland dedication, I don't buy it.

Seems the City got steamrolled at LPAT, given the GFA is up and this is now a parkland dedication contribution.

Could have take the cash-in-lieu and expanded the Yonge Subway overtop parkettes by purchasing adjacent house properties like they are doing on Dundonald for The ONE.
 
Northern Light said:
In the immediate area, I would rather see this lot on Wood Street, used as public parking, and too close to an adjacent apartment to permit development acquired as park.

It would serve as a missing link in the parallel to Yonge series of parks.

Alexander Park is directly to the north.

View attachment 296945

The size is roughly 0.2ha or 0.5 acres; and given its lack of utility for development should be available for a reasonable price.
Click to expand...
I walk through this parking lot most days, as it's a fast route to/from College St. It would be so much nicer as a linear park. Combined with turning the Maitland-Wellesley parking lot into a park and adding a connection between the Alexander St Parkette and Maitland, we'd have a series of linear parks and alleys (in the couple blocks where we cant fit a park, like beside Wellesley station or the hydro building) the whole way from College to Charles (and to Hayden and Bloor-Yonge Station via the parking garage). A nice alternative to walking along Yonge, imo.
 
TossYourJacket said:
I walk through this parking lot most days, as it's a fast route to/from College St. It would be so much nicer as a linear park. Combined with turning the Maitland-Wellesley parking lot into a park and adding a connection between the Alexander St Parkette and Maitland, we'd have a series of linear parks and alleys (in the couple blocks where we cant fit a park, like beside Wellesley station or the hydro building) the whole way from College to Charles (and to Hayden and Bloor-Yonge Station via the parking garage). A nice alternative to walking along Yonge, imo.
Click to expand...

Are you sure we can't fit a park beside Wellesley stn?

1611962931897.png


You're looking at space adjacent to the laneway, next to the station.

That's roughly 1/3 of that laneway/block in length.

Obviously, one would have to provide for loading/garbage functions; but I think that would be quite do-able.

On a gross basis, it's 6,000ft2

If the heritage properties facing Yonge were lovingly restored; and a restaurant or 2 had back patios facing a courtyard style park.............

The laneway done in decorative pavers, with elegant lighting, and vines growing up the sides of adjacent buildings.........

Just a thought....
 
Northern Light said:
Are you sure we can't fit a park beside Wellesley stn?

View attachment 297004

You're looking at space adjacent to the laneway, next to the station.

That's roughly 1/3 of that laneway/block in length.

Obviously, one would have to provide for loading/garbage functions; but I think that would be quite do-able.

On a gross basis, it's 6,000ft2

If the heritage properties facing Yonge were lovingly restored; and a restaurant or 2 had back patios facing a courtyard style park.............

The laneway done in decorative pavers, with elegant lighting, and vines growing up the sides of adjacent buildings.........

Just a thought....
Click to expand...
I was originally thinking of the tiny pedestrian laneway on the other side next to the new entrance and totally forgot about this space. Turning this into a park/patio space would be amazing!
 
I think that the revised version is fresh air. I’m totally amazed with some of the knee jerk criticisms here.

So it’s perhaps a tad retro-pomo, I can’t actually find anything really wrong with that.

Or, perhaps this is what nearby Aura should have been.
 
condovo said:
The "revised" design here is ridiculously bad. I mean it's laughable. It's scraping the bottom of the Aura barrel. Luckily, this probably is nothing more than an air-rights exercise. Fingers crossed.
Click to expand...

I do agree, it's likely a way to test waters. I do like that they have to move to a 1 tower format, a 2-tower format on this site feels incredibly crowded to me and I'd like to see the tower rise out of a slightly wider podium, or something of the sorts.

The design is so bad that no self-respecting architect would want that in their portfolio. It looks like it's straight out of a Sims City game.
 
condovo said:
The "revised" design here is ridiculously bad. I mean it's laughable. It's scraping the bottom of the Aura barrel. Luckily, this probably is nothing more than an air-rights exercise. Fingers crossed.
Click to expand...
Man you people blow this out of proportion! As for the Aura Tower it sit on a cheezy looking podium making it look bad. The Mirvish-Gehry proposal on King st ranks in first place and doesn't deserve the air rights for having a bunch of boxes stacked in the sky!
 
cd concept said:
Man you people blow this out of proportion! As for the Aura Tower it sit on a cheezy looking podium making it look bad. The Mirvish-Gehry proposal on King st ranks in first place and doesn't deserve the air rights for having a bunch of boxes stacked in the sky!
Click to expand...

Something to consider is the sheer size of many these proposals.

These are not pencil thin towers, perhaps more importantly, they aren't granular podiums that disappear into the streetscape.

These are high-impact proposals for better or worse.

Most in this immediate vicinity lean towards the 'worse' side of that spectra.

It's not simply whether it's interesting or exciting or to someone's taste; it's the planning of behemoth developments that are by their nature problematic..........

But whose impact can be made worthwhile, either by having the tower largely disappear at street level, like at 5 over on St. Joseph, or make a dramatic and interesting statement like 1 Bloor West.

Where a behemoth does neither of those things............it will tend to elicit negative reaction, not without reason.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top