Application to the AIC is now in, and public facing:
www.toronto.ca
@Paclo
The preview we got here was quite thorough, so not much new info at this stage.
This is interesting, a ground-floor plan at the scale of the site:
3 things I would focus people's attention on:
1) The Bold Red Lines are retail; this curiously implies the site will not have any retail on its Sheppard elevation. I now really wish to see how that is envisioned, and whether the City will go for that.
2) The red arrows / thin lines show vehicle access into the site. Some of the suggested access/patterns of same have vehicles penetrating what are indicated as pedestrian zones, and interior courtyard spaces. I'll be open minded on this, but I want to see some further detail on how that's proposed to work, and whether the intrusion is limited to some loading functions or material amounts of parking.
3) The green spine pedestrian corridor running between Carl Hall Road and Tuscan Gate, roughly parallel to Sheppard W has some quirks to it, including having to cross multiple streets, presumably without protected crossings?, Something you can see when the image is enlarged, the minimum width of the corridor is 15M at all times, with much wider spaces in parks/courtyards. This should be adequate for capacity and public safety purposes, though the details will matter, particularly if heavy naturalized landscapes are employed. (at pinch points) .
****
In answer to my own queries above, I found this image which adds drive-way/ramp access to underground and improves the understanding of the Site Plan:
So they've tried to limit vehicle movement volume (access) across the spine; though that is interrupted at the south end of same.
***
In light of many discussions about ROW width at McCleary and Villiers, the map of same here may provoke discussion:
I don't want to clutter this post or thread with stuff from McCleary, but to allow people to compare, I will link below to my post that illustrates the ROWs at McCleary:
After taking a little wonder through this area and seeing how advanced many of the applications are I am wondering if we will see more development here rather than on Villiers?
urbantoronto.ca
The Cycling and Pedestrian Network:
Now a couple of description pages:
I'm going to pause here to note than the City's goal for tree canopy City-wide is 40%, while this Site Plan proposes 25%.
Its important, of course, place the above in context, preservation of the two large depots, limits the amount of tree canopy. I'm not arguing against that, but I think
its an important illustration of public policy trades, where one seeks to preserve heritage and reduce waste, but in so-doing limits tree canopy which increases the heat sink affect in summer, which in turn drives up use of energy-intensive air conditioning. I won't argue for/against, I merely wish to illustrate how when you pull one thing, you push another, and getting the balance right can be a challenge.
Further to context, we have also want to consider the expanse of Downsview Park itself, as well as the woodlot preservration in the Arbor proposal to the north, when looking at canopy. I'd actually like to see a projected tree canopy over the entire Downsview Site, the flagship park included. I would certainly hope we will meet or exceed 40%, and if we do, great. I would note, 40% is not some nirvana, and if you laid things out 'just so' I think you might hope for closer to 60%, but in fairness to the City, that's very challenging to do, particularly if you're looking at tall buildings above the canopy height.
******
I think we'll leave it there for now UT.
Follow the link for more.
