Northern Light
Superstar
Ok....
Let's start w/the neither here nor there stuff............
When I look back at my initial analysis it did not occur to me that 'the park' was actually across the street from the building(s) site. No wonder I couldn't figure out how they were working this....
***
On the park.........the size is better than many, and I appreciate the land swap idea............ I don't think they have the right idea for a few reasons. I may devote a separate post to that......but simply.........
1) The proposed park and the 'tot lot' (micro park for tots) are both subject to shadows at unfortunate times of day. The shadowing is fine in terms of total hours......though we have to talk future development pattern assumptions in that regard.....
But the worst shadows fall in the after-school hours............not ideal.
There are two considerations w/shadows in parks, one is adequate light for nature, the other is sun when people are likely to use the park.
2) The size remains too small for most functional programming.
***
On the height more broadly.....39 storeys is a very big ask for the interior of this site. Precedent remains a very important word, why do you get to convert this particular stretch of employment/neighbourhood, but the people one street over somehow have to keep it short? This is part of the problem of the endless yes to height that many here deny exists..... Where does it stop......? You'll see why I ask in a moment.
The argument may be made that there is a need for housing, I am, of course, sympathetic to that argument. But why always in a tower form? Why always maximalist? The developer here is not a non-profit; this is not about the social good, it's about making money. Nothing wrong w/that by the way, and I'm not allergic to height in general, or necessarily here. But I dislike arguments that seem ill-thought out and a bit too self-serving.
So what the hell am I on about anyway?
For that.....let's turn to the Block Context Plan. For those not in/near the industry this is the doc that private planners submit that mixes what exists, what has been approved or is in process, with that they imagine an area may look like after a full cycle of development, say in 20 years.
Here's theirs:
Grey is this proposal. Red is what they imagine the area will build out like. Note that they envision a very tall rebuild on the current Shopper's World site....... A site I told UT Riocan was evaluating the future of sometime ago.
I would suggest there are more than a few issues w/what they imagine happening and I'm 100% pro redeveloping that site to mixed use, with some height on it. They're imagining asks on the order of 55s.
There is no way that is building out the way they think.....that's a whole separate discussion...
I'm far more intrigued by why they feel the height will suddenly drop off immediately east of their proposal....which makes no sense if one is using an MTSA radius to justify the density.
One more image from the Context....just try to take this in...
The above is over 1,000 stories of development, which even at 10 units per floor is over 10,000 units, housing over 15,000 people. There's no way all the floor plates here would be that slender or the unit sizes that generous.
This doesn't reflect the uber-dense proposals in the Main to Dawes block just to the west, the CreateTO site next to VP Station or any intermediate sites. If, you accept the above, you're proposing over 30,000 units and 50,000 net new residents in under 2km2.
That's w/o counting the Kilmer lands or the Loblaws site to the south. There is no way to build that successfully or at all, w/o drastic infrastructure intervention.
****
As a side note, after initially referencing a school at this site, we learn they meant a Montessori. So a daycare for rich families............ I mean fine, I suppose but are we seriously pitching that as progressive? I'd laugh if I didn't want to cry.
There's a lot to like in the design ideas, and I'm fine w/the height in theory...........but so much is so not achieving good planning goals here........
I'll try to find time to follow up and show what this should look like.....
Let's start w/the neither here nor there stuff............
When I look back at my initial analysis it did not occur to me that 'the park' was actually across the street from the building(s) site. No wonder I couldn't figure out how they were working this....
***
On the park.........the size is better than many, and I appreciate the land swap idea............ I don't think they have the right idea for a few reasons. I may devote a separate post to that......but simply.........
1) The proposed park and the 'tot lot' (micro park for tots) are both subject to shadows at unfortunate times of day. The shadowing is fine in terms of total hours......though we have to talk future development pattern assumptions in that regard.....
But the worst shadows fall in the after-school hours............not ideal.
There are two considerations w/shadows in parks, one is adequate light for nature, the other is sun when people are likely to use the park.
2) The size remains too small for most functional programming.
***
On the height more broadly.....39 storeys is a very big ask for the interior of this site. Precedent remains a very important word, why do you get to convert this particular stretch of employment/neighbourhood, but the people one street over somehow have to keep it short? This is part of the problem of the endless yes to height that many here deny exists..... Where does it stop......? You'll see why I ask in a moment.
The argument may be made that there is a need for housing, I am, of course, sympathetic to that argument. But why always in a tower form? Why always maximalist? The developer here is not a non-profit; this is not about the social good, it's about making money. Nothing wrong w/that by the way, and I'm not allergic to height in general, or necessarily here. But I dislike arguments that seem ill-thought out and a bit too self-serving.
So what the hell am I on about anyway?
For that.....let's turn to the Block Context Plan. For those not in/near the industry this is the doc that private planners submit that mixes what exists, what has been approved or is in process, with that they imagine an area may look like after a full cycle of development, say in 20 years.
Here's theirs:
Grey is this proposal. Red is what they imagine the area will build out like. Note that they envision a very tall rebuild on the current Shopper's World site....... A site I told UT Riocan was evaluating the future of sometime ago.
I would suggest there are more than a few issues w/what they imagine happening and I'm 100% pro redeveloping that site to mixed use, with some height on it. They're imagining asks on the order of 55s.
There is no way that is building out the way they think.....that's a whole separate discussion...
I'm far more intrigued by why they feel the height will suddenly drop off immediately east of their proposal....which makes no sense if one is using an MTSA radius to justify the density.
One more image from the Context....just try to take this in...
The above is over 1,000 stories of development, which even at 10 units per floor is over 10,000 units, housing over 15,000 people. There's no way all the floor plates here would be that slender or the unit sizes that generous.
This doesn't reflect the uber-dense proposals in the Main to Dawes block just to the west, the CreateTO site next to VP Station or any intermediate sites. If, you accept the above, you're proposing over 30,000 units and 50,000 net new residents in under 2km2.
That's w/o counting the Kilmer lands or the Loblaws site to the south. There is no way to build that successfully or at all, w/o drastic infrastructure intervention.
****
As a side note, after initially referencing a school at this site, we learn they meant a Montessori. So a daycare for rich families............ I mean fine, I suppose but are we seriously pitching that as progressive? I'd laugh if I didn't want to cry.
There's a lot to like in the design ideas, and I'm fine w/the height in theory...........but so much is so not achieving good planning goals here........
I'll try to find time to follow up and show what this should look like.....
Last edited:
