Fair enough. With the current outline, we need about 31 leaders. If we can get more volunteers than that, then I would definately suggest smaller groups. The more volunteers we get, the more feasible it is - and there has been great interest already!
Can we count you in for the day as a leader for your street, or half street? Just means you will be a point person on that day, with handing out some garbage bags, having some fun, meeting some neighbours, and doing as much cleanup as you feel comfortable. Really, we're making the rules up as we go - wanna be a part of it?
I was wondering if the areas that are listed are too large. Maybe they should be broken down into smaller sections since we are also doing the laneways. That way we would have more leaders and smaller group would feel too burdened.
I am a member of the Railpath Group. Currently there is general agreement between the stakeholders (Metrolinx, City, Railpath) about making stage 2 happen and talks have been going on.
1.There are some issues in terms of space south east of Sudbury Street that may not be solvable which means that the exit point south would be at the west end of Sudbury. This is outcome would still be far better than no stage 2. Anything is possible but getting all the way downtown looks unlikely.
2. Room was left in the Dufferin Jog (underway) so that Railpath can get over the bridge at Queen and Dufferin and that there is access at Queen and Dufferin.
3.Metrolinx has agreed to do what they can to make stage 2 happen and in some cases may be of great assistance especially in terms of cleaning the soil. The work that Metrolinx is doing is subject to 2 EA's plus a fair amount of public protest relating to diesel plus the actual reconfiguration and addition of rail lines. Railpath stage 2 may have to wait for all of Metrolinx's stuff to be done before the City can go ahead. That could be a few years.
4. As always there could be City issues but Stage 1 took over 10 years and the success of it is so obvious and people can now visualize stage 2 easier, so I think the political and public will to make this happen is there.
The short answer is that Stage 2 looks good and is moving slowly and surely along.
This link was provided above, but was a bit burried in the text. This link will give you more information as to how the city is supporting this event accross the GTA (in terms of bags, gloves, pick up locations, and flyers to use to bring our neighbours out!
Does anyone know what the current state is for further planning and construction of Phase 2 and beyond for the Railpath, and what any particular outstanding issues are to have this path continued further south towards downtown?
Glad to see the support. I suggest we write out all the area / street names we are looking for volunteers for, and people might be more inclined to think of themselves if they see their street needs someone to take the lead. How about this - who is willing for these streets and their laneways (which could be co-ordinated with other street leaders on shared laneways):
• Edwin (South) and Alpine **** Craig C.
• Edwin (North)
• Osler (to the tracks) and Cariboo
• Edith
• Hugo
• Franklin (North)
• Franklin (South)
• Perth (North)
• Perth (Dupont - Wallace)
• Perth (Wallace - Bloor)
• Perth (Bloor - Sterling)
• Sterling
• Ruttan and Merchant Lane
• Franklin (North)
• Franklin (South)
• Parkman
• Antler
• Ruskin
• Macauley
• Wallace (Railpath – Symington)
• Wallace (Symington – Eastern tracks)
• Symington (Northern tracks – Wallace)
• Symington (Wallace - Bloor) **** Vic
• Campbell (North end – Wallace)
• Campbell (Wallace - Rankin) and Sarnia
• Ernest
• Randolph
• Pear Tree and Dekoven Mews
• Rankin
• Paton
• Railpath **** Scott
The city will provide garbage bags and gloves, and a JT organising comittee can look to provide a flyer template for volunteer leaders to distribute to your street and area. With a co-ordinated effort like this - it is likely we can make both an event for the Junction Triangle community to participate in, and a great cleanup result in the end. No doubt, this would be a fantastic day for both kids and adults so we can see the greater value of keeping our neighbourhood streets and laneways cleaner, safer, and a more welcome place for us all to be.
Who else would like to be a part of this, either as a street leader or as a participant?
- Craig C.
PS - If I have left any other streets in the JT neighbourhood out by mistake, please say so!
My first real job ever was at Wallace Studios in the early 80's. We needed supplies and as a PA I was sent to get stuff. I ran out the door thinking "where am I going to get screws etc in this hood" when my eyes fell upon D&M. I was back in about 5 minutes and the producer looked at me as if I was pulling a fast one coming back that quick. The thing I was working on was a commercial for Cavendish french fries. The beginning of an illustrious career. : )
Even last year's picture looks quite different now with the construction of the Junction Triangle Lofts, the old D & M lumber building (on the left) is gone. Demolition crews finished tearing down the building last week.
I agree that cyclists should be able to ride in safety; Lansdowne indeed gets outright unsafe at time north of Bloor.
That being said, there simply *must* be integration with traffic lights and changing their patterns. The bike lanes added to Dupont make it an absolute nightmare for anyone who needs to drive. The traffic jams are frankly senseless.
Adding bike lanes to arteries needs to involve more than spraypaint.
I wanted to remind people that a lot of locals are a bit burned from Fuzzy Boundaries and chilling and there is activity on the Metrolinx front so it may take a some more warm weather to get people active.
Vic & I met briefly at the Lansdowne bike thing last week, but nothing more has happened since, we all need to try and find the most agreeable time/place to meet and just do it, understanding that it will be difficult for all of us to find just one perfect time,
I think, what is best is to put something out there.... and try to connect via email or something ?
I moved the conversations about general planning/intensification issues into their own forum. Let's continue to use this forum for Giraffe / Dundas+Bloor conversations, the other forum from the general intensification topics.
If we can get a bunch of people to take responsibility for a small section of the neighbourhood, and recruit a few more volunteers / neighbours, the cleanup will cover a huge amount of the neighbourhood and individual effort would be little.
Craig on Edwin, I could take south end of Symington + my lane, Scott could organize something for Railpath....etc... tidy in no time at all.
I don't see why a neighbour who is already going that way to drop off their own children at school can't double up and take a couple more kids for parents who have to work. Then the favour can be exchanged another time. Just a thought.
I would be willing to help co-ordinate clean-up activities around Edwin Avenue from Dupont to Ruskin - both street and alley. Perhaps if we could create a neighbourhood wide flyer for distribution, and augment it to reflect your local street and a local street leader and contact for organisation - that could be a good way to make it a whole JT community event, but also specifically oriented around the streets we live on. I could deliver the flyer to Edwin south residents, and if we could get volunteer street leaders for:
Osler north, Edwin north, Ruskin, Frankling north and south, Antler, Perth, Symington, Campbell, Wallace, etc, etc, and as a group we could do a phenomenal clean-up day - or at least increase participation. Any thoughts from interested neighbours from other streets in the neighbourhood?
I further the interest to see worthwhile and valuable development in the neighbourhood, and would be interested to be a part of the conversation, as well.
-Craig
As newer residents to the JT, we have been ferrying our children down to our old neighbourhood in Roncy, when Perth is right around the corner. This year, we will be joining the Perth School community, and walking would be the only reasonable way to get the kids over to school. I guess the major issue is that people are NORMALLY running late in mornings, and even if they are not far from the school, they plan to drop off, and then drive off to work. Down in Roncy, there are far more stay at home Moms that have the luxury of walking their kids to school. If we were to go back 20 - 30 plus years ago when we parents were going to elementary school, recall that we would have walked BY OURSELVES, or in groups maybe - but usually not with parents, as they would have been off to work. I think this is a clear, cultural change over the years around safety - which I think is partially unfortunate as it indirectly supports negative attitudes and habits related to obesity, lack of activity, community integration and involvement for kids and parents, neighbourhood knowledge, neighbourhood fear amplification (and therefore personal confidence in your community), and strengthening the predominence of car culture.
We should support "safe routes to school" if we are to better our community is safe, healthy and interactive ways - for both kids and adults. Check out this quote:
"You may be surprised to learn that 9 out of 10 parents who walk their children to school use it as an ideal way to meet new people, socialize at the school gate and get some daily exercise" - from the Safe Route to School website.
Get out and get some exercise, meet your neighbours, gain more confidence and respect for your neighbourhood while walking / walking your kids to school (if you can and can make the time, of course!). Maybe starting some "Walking School Bus" (http://www.saferoutestoschool.ca/walkingschoolbus.asp) groups could work here - and use this site as a sign up for interest and organisation?
I would fully support this initiative, as our daughter will be in JK this year at Perth - and I think the FI program would be well suited to her. Please include me if a group is required to make a case for this program at Perth!
I thought this was an interesting post with some great links. Basically a Milton elementary school has banned parents from driving their children to school to reduce congestion, pollution, unsafe streets and child obesity. Not 100% applicable to our area I have always felt that far too many kids are driven to schools in our area. Without naming names I can think of a few parents who drive their kid about 2 blocks to school. I would state that 8:30 am to 9 am is the most dangerous time in the area for walkers and bikers. Beyond the obvious I have always felt that carts make communities unsafer because it reduces street presence. I like seeing those "trains" of kids and parents or the Boys and Girls club snaking their way up and down the street.
The huge and prime parcel of land that the Blansdowne Value Village sits on. Does anyone know if after Value Village's lease runs out, will the land be developed? And if so, what would be appropriate for the land, tall towers, or townhomes, etc?
Does anyone know when Value Village's lease runs out?
Editor's Note: I posted this as its own forum topic here. Please post replies in that forum.
Glad to see the interest in planning and development. I am a West Bend resident (west of the tracks) with a lot already on my plate, so I can't join you - our residents associaton is our forum for these discussions. However, I do want to make a suggestion. Since 2005, the City has been studying mid-rise development, especially for the Avenues designated in the Official Plan. I recently took part in an Open House and a focus group. In May, a report will go to the Planning and Growth Management Committee for approval. After the election, the city will be bringing in a new zoning by-law based on this report which will re-zone the Avenues (e.g., Bloor, Dundas, St Clair, Roncesvalles, Danforth, Kingston Road, parts of lawrence East and many more) to allow as-of-right mid-rise buildings (with height being defined as a 1:1 ratio with the width of the right-of-way - the wider the street, the taller the height). You might want to have a look at the report (about 100 pages) which contains performance standards that help to define the fine nuances of how this by-law could affect development along Bloor. Apart from anything else, it is a helpful guide to how planners talk about planning principles.
Scott, I was in part reacting to your reference to NIMBYs in your own post (March 17, 12:48 pm). You gave that as a reason for not participating in the design charrette (for the Avenue Study); otherwise, I would not have used the term as I think it is an unhelpful generalization that can include a very wide range of reasons for opposing a development. Yes, some people were a bit hysterical but that doesn't mean there was not a solid case for the city's position.
Here are few other responses to your post:
On the matter of the Crossways and setbacks - In planning terms, there is no setback. The Crossways is built out to the property line and that is generally the standard for buildings like that. It does, however, have a stepback. That is, after rising up from the property line, it steps back after four storeys. The point that I think you are trying to make is the above-grade access to the building, which creates an unfriendly frontage. This also happens at other locations on Bloor (both above and below grade access was a bad habit a couple of decades ago and is partly the result of unimaginative ways of addressing changes in the topography and underpasses). The new Avenue By-law based on the Avenue Study requires at-grade access on new development.
I haven't followed 351 Wallace closely, so I am unable to comment on the Planning Department's handling of that application, with respect to deciding whether to go to the OMB. However, I know that with 1638 Bloor (at Indian Road), the planners were looking for nothing above 10 storeys but decided not to go to the OMB to fight an application for 12 storeys. The planner was opposed to 12 storeys because he predicted that it would set a precedent that would lead to a relative imbalance between the north side of Bloor and the south side of Bloor. (It is very easy to achieve the 45 degree angular plane at the rear of the properties on the north side of Bloor owing to the separation distance from the neighbourhood created by the subway tracks which are very wide along this stretch of Bloor because of the Vincent Yards maintenance tracks. The commercial properties on the south side are separated only by a laneway from the neighbourhood and the 45 degree angular plane is pierced by anything over four storeys, so the south side can only accommodate six storeys, even with a rear stepback after four storeys. The developer had filed an appeal. However, given the odds of winning an argument at the OMB over two storeys and given the stretched resources at the planning department, we all met with the developer and architect and achieved some design concessions on the building to reinforce the cornice line and stepbacks and the OMB appeal was settled prior to a hearing. As I say, I don't know the case at 351 Wallace but it is often the case in negotiated compromises that do not make it to a hearing that the city does get something back even when it concedes on points it does not like. I would like to see the city give Planning a much bigger budget but the city's financial straitjacket is outside the scope of this message.
With respect o Kipling and Islington. Maybe you are not as familiar with the OP as I am after sitting through many, many, many design charrettes and public consultations! So I am just going to gently remind you that Bloor Street, around Islington and Kipling is NOT designated as an "Avenue" in the OP. In this section, Bloor Street is a "Centre" (indicated in red on the OP) and that means that the plan permits tall buildings there. That's why they are builkding them there - because they are allowed and as of right under the plan. Bloor-Dundas is an Avenue, not a Centre, therefore, in general, we will see mid-rise, not high-rise.
With respect to the Giraffe design. I agree that it was not originally a cookie cutter design and even when TAS made changes to hit a lower price point, it was still not bad. I am all in favour of buildings that are contemporary. But the site was too small to allow any transition to the west. On the Dundas frontage, it had a more-or-less sheer vertical plane (again, no space for any stepbacks on the eastern face) making for a very unpleasant pedestrian environment. The building had problems being in that location.
On the mobility hub (as Metrolinx calls it). Yes, Metrolinx thinks that Dundas West/Bloor could be a mobility hub. On paper, it looks promising, since a rail corridor crosses a subway line. However, there are substantial impediments. On the physical impediment side, the TTC has a four-track maintenance tunnel on the south side of the station, so it is currently impossible to create an underground linkage (for example, from 1540 Bloor). It is true that the platforms run east under the Crossways (I think at level 2 of the underground parking) but the Crossways has shown no interest in allowing access through their building. Let's face it, it would cost them a lot of money to make internal changes to realize any returns. The cost-benefit calculation just doesn't make sense, especially as their shopping area is already well above grade. Apart from the phsical impediments, there is very little interchange on the part of passengers. Fewer than 100 people a day get off the current GO Georgetown and even fewer get on. Some of the people who get off work in the Crossways, so they don't transfer to the subway at all. Metrolinx will be studying the options for connection soon, but I am not expecting anything earthshaking (more like a overground walkway along the south side of the used car lot). The projected numbers for the mobility hub in The Big Move are very heavily contingent on the building of the Downtown Relief Line - I'm not holding my breath on that one, especially since the province just halved the funding for Transit City.
Thanks for the update, Scott.
Fair enough. With the current outline, we need about 31 leaders. If we can get more volunteers than that, then I would definately suggest smaller groups. The more volunteers we get, the more feasible it is - and there has been great interest already!
Can we count you in for the day as a leader for your street, or half street? Just means you will be a point person on that day, with handing out some garbage bags, having some fun, meeting some neighbours, and doing as much cleanup as you feel comfortable. Really, we're making the rules up as we go - wanna be a part of it?
I was wondering if the areas that are listed are too large. Maybe they should be broken down into smaller sections since we are also doing the laneways. That way we would have more leaders and smaller group would feel too burdened.
I am a member of the Railpath Group. Currently there is general agreement between the stakeholders (Metrolinx, City, Railpath) about making stage 2 happen and talks have been going on.
1.There are some issues in terms of space south east of Sudbury Street that may not be solvable which means that the exit point south would be at the west end of Sudbury. This is outcome would still be far better than no stage 2. Anything is possible but getting all the way downtown looks unlikely.
2. Room was left in the Dufferin Jog (underway) so that Railpath can get over the bridge at Queen and Dufferin and that there is access at Queen and Dufferin.
3.Metrolinx has agreed to do what they can to make stage 2 happen and in some cases may be of great assistance especially in terms of cleaning the soil. The work that Metrolinx is doing is subject to 2 EA's plus a fair amount of public protest relating to diesel plus the actual reconfiguration and addition of rail lines. Railpath stage 2 may have to wait for all of Metrolinx's stuff to be done before the City can go ahead. That could be a few years.
4. As always there could be City issues but Stage 1 took over 10 years and the success of it is so obvious and people can now visualize stage 2 easier, so I think the political and public will to make this happen is there.
The short answer is that Stage 2 looks good and is moving slowly and surely along.
This link was provided above, but was a bit burried in the text. This link will give you more information as to how the city is supporting this event accross the GTA (in terms of bags, gloves, pick up locations, and flyers to use to bring our neighbours out!
http://www.toronto.ca/litter/clean-up/signup.htm
Does anyone know what the current state is for further planning and construction of Phase 2 and beyond for the Railpath, and what any particular outstanding issues are to have this path continued further south towards downtown?
Glad to see the support. I suggest we write out all the area / street names we are looking for volunteers for, and people might be more inclined to think of themselves if they see their street needs someone to take the lead. How about this - who is willing for these streets and their laneways (which could be co-ordinated with other street leaders on shared laneways):
• Edwin (South) and Alpine **** Craig C.
• Edwin (North)
• Osler (to the tracks) and Cariboo
• Edith
• Hugo
• Franklin (North)
• Franklin (South)
• Perth (North)
• Perth (Dupont - Wallace)
• Perth (Wallace - Bloor)
• Perth (Bloor - Sterling)
• Sterling
• Ruttan and Merchant Lane
• Franklin (North)
• Franklin (South)
• Parkman
• Antler
• Ruskin
• Macauley
• Wallace (Railpath – Symington)
• Wallace (Symington – Eastern tracks)
• Symington (Northern tracks – Wallace)
• Symington (Wallace - Bloor) **** Vic
• Campbell (North end – Wallace)
• Campbell (Wallace - Rankin) and Sarnia
• Ernest
• Randolph
• Pear Tree and Dekoven Mews
• Rankin
• Paton
• Railpath **** Scott
The city will provide garbage bags and gloves, and a JT organising comittee can look to provide a flyer template for volunteer leaders to distribute to your street and area. With a co-ordinated effort like this - it is likely we can make both an event for the Junction Triangle community to participate in, and a great cleanup result in the end. No doubt, this would be a fantastic day for both kids and adults so we can see the greater value of keeping our neighbourhood streets and laneways cleaner, safer, and a more welcome place for us all to be.
Who else would like to be a part of this, either as a street leader or as a participant?
- Craig C.
PS - If I have left any other streets in the JT neighbourhood out by mistake, please say so!
My first real job ever was at Wallace Studios in the early 80's. We needed supplies and as a PA I was sent to get stuff. I ran out the door thinking "where am I going to get screws etc in this hood" when my eyes fell upon D&M. I was back in about 5 minutes and the producer looked at me as if I was pulling a fast one coming back that quick. The thing I was working on was a commercial for Cavendish french fries. The beginning of an illustrious career. : )
Even last year's picture looks quite different now with the construction of the Junction Triangle Lofts, the old D & M lumber building (on the left) is gone. Demolition crews finished tearing down the building last week.
I agree that cyclists should be able to ride in safety; Lansdowne indeed gets outright unsafe at time north of Bloor.
That being said, there simply *must* be integration with traffic lights and changing their patterns. The bike lanes added to Dupont make it an absolute nightmare for anyone who needs to drive. The traffic jams are frankly senseless.
Adding bike lanes to arteries needs to involve more than spraypaint.
Nice video by Tino:
http://bikelanediary.blogspot.com/2010/03/happy-good-morning-ride_30.html
I wanted to remind people that a lot of locals are a bit burned from Fuzzy Boundaries and chilling and there is activity on the Metrolinx front so it may take a some more warm weather to get people active.
sounds great,
Vic & I met briefly at the Lansdowne bike thing last week, but nothing more has happened since, we all need to try and find the most agreeable time/place to meet and just do it, understanding that it will be difficult for all of us to find just one perfect time,
I think, what is best is to put something out there.... and try to connect via email or something ?
any other suggestions
Kori
Hi everyone,
I moved the conversations about general planning/intensification issues into their own forum. Let's continue to use this forum for Giraffe / Dundas+Bloor conversations, the other forum from the general intensification topics.
Thanks Craig, that's a great idea.
If we can get a bunch of people to take responsibility for a small section of the neighbourhood, and recruit a few more volunteers / neighbours, the cleanup will cover a huge amount of the neighbourhood and individual effort would be little.
Craig on Edwin, I could take south end of Symington + my lane, Scott could organize something for Railpath....etc... tidy in no time at all.
Let's do it. Who else is in?
I don't see why a neighbour who is already going that way to drop off their own children at school can't double up and take a couple more kids for parents who have to work. Then the favour can be exchanged another time. Just a thought.
I would be willing to help co-ordinate clean-up activities around Edwin Avenue from Dupont to Ruskin - both street and alley. Perhaps if we could create a neighbourhood wide flyer for distribution, and augment it to reflect your local street and a local street leader and contact for organisation - that could be a good way to make it a whole JT community event, but also specifically oriented around the streets we live on. I could deliver the flyer to Edwin south residents, and if we could get volunteer street leaders for:
Osler north, Edwin north, Ruskin, Frankling north and south, Antler, Perth, Symington, Campbell, Wallace, etc, etc, and as a group we could do a phenomenal clean-up day - or at least increase participation. Any thoughts from interested neighbours from other streets in the neighbourhood?
-Craig
As an aside, at least the property at NW end of Wallace will make a great dog park until they decide what to do with property development!
I further the interest to see worthwhile and valuable development in the neighbourhood, and would be interested to be a part of the conversation, as well.
-Craig
As newer residents to the JT, we have been ferrying our children down to our old neighbourhood in Roncy, when Perth is right around the corner. This year, we will be joining the Perth School community, and walking would be the only reasonable way to get the kids over to school. I guess the major issue is that people are NORMALLY running late in mornings, and even if they are not far from the school, they plan to drop off, and then drive off to work. Down in Roncy, there are far more stay at home Moms that have the luxury of walking their kids to school. If we were to go back 20 - 30 plus years ago when we parents were going to elementary school, recall that we would have walked BY OURSELVES, or in groups maybe - but usually not with parents, as they would have been off to work. I think this is a clear, cultural change over the years around safety - which I think is partially unfortunate as it indirectly supports negative attitudes and habits related to obesity, lack of activity, community integration and involvement for kids and parents, neighbourhood knowledge, neighbourhood fear amplification (and therefore personal confidence in your community), and strengthening the predominence of car culture.
We should support "safe routes to school" if we are to better our community is safe, healthy and interactive ways - for both kids and adults. Check out this quote:
"You may be surprised to learn that 9 out of 10 parents who walk their children to school use it as an ideal way to meet new people, socialize at the school gate and get some daily exercise" - from the Safe Route to School website.
Get out and get some exercise, meet your neighbours, gain more confidence and respect for your neighbourhood while walking / walking your kids to school (if you can and can make the time, of course!). Maybe starting some "Walking School Bus" (http://www.saferoutestoschool.ca/walkingschoolbus.asp) groups could work here - and use this site as a sign up for interest and organisation?
I would fully support this initiative, as our daughter will be in JK this year at Perth - and I think the FI program would be well suited to her. Please include me if a group is required to make a case for this program at Perth!
I thought this was an interesting post with some great links. Basically a Milton elementary school has banned parents from driving their children to school to reduce congestion, pollution, unsafe streets and child obesity. Not 100% applicable to our area I have always felt that far too many kids are driven to schools in our area. Without naming names I can think of a few parents who drive their kid about 2 blocks to school. I would state that 8:30 am to 9 am is the most dangerous time in the area for walkers and bikers. Beyond the obvious I have always felt that carts make communities unsafer because it reduces street presence. I like seeing those "trains" of kids and parents or the Boys and Girls club snaking their way up and down the street.
http://spacing.ca/wire/2010/03/25/milton-school-forces-to-students-to-walk/
The Active and Safe Routes to School initiative is funded by the Ontario Government and I think its worth a read.
http://www.saferoutestoschool.ca
The huge and prime parcel of land that the Blansdowne Value Village sits on. Does anyone know if after Value Village's lease runs out, will the land be developed? And if so, what would be appropriate for the land, tall towers, or townhomes, etc?
Does anyone know when Value Village's lease runs out?
Editor's Note: I posted this as its own forum topic here. Please post replies in that forum.
Glad to see the interest in planning and development. I am a West Bend resident (west of the tracks) with a lot already on my plate, so I can't join you - our residents associaton is our forum for these discussions. However, I do want to make a suggestion. Since 2005, the City has been studying mid-rise development, especially for the Avenues designated in the Official Plan. I recently took part in an Open House and a focus group. In May, a report will go to the Planning and Growth Management Committee for approval. After the election, the city will be bringing in a new zoning by-law based on this report which will re-zone the Avenues (e.g., Bloor, Dundas, St Clair, Roncesvalles, Danforth, Kingston Road, parts of lawrence East and many more) to allow as-of-right mid-rise buildings (with height being defined as a 1:1 ratio with the width of the right-of-way - the wider the street, the taller the height). You might want to have a look at the report (about 100 pages) which contains performance standards that help to define the fine nuances of how this by-law could affect development along Bloor. Apart from anything else, it is a helpful guide to how planners talk about planning principles.
It is at http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2009/pg/bgrd/backgroundfile-23229.pdf
Hilary
Scott, I was in part reacting to your reference to NIMBYs in your own post (March 17, 12:48 pm). You gave that as a reason for not participating in the design charrette (for the Avenue Study); otherwise, I would not have used the term as I think it is an unhelpful generalization that can include a very wide range of reasons for opposing a development. Yes, some people were a bit hysterical but that doesn't mean there was not a solid case for the city's position.
Here are few other responses to your post:
On the matter of the Crossways and setbacks - In planning terms, there is no setback. The Crossways is built out to the property line and that is generally the standard for buildings like that. It does, however, have a stepback. That is, after rising up from the property line, it steps back after four storeys. The point that I think you are trying to make is the above-grade access to the building, which creates an unfriendly frontage. This also happens at other locations on Bloor (both above and below grade access was a bad habit a couple of decades ago and is partly the result of unimaginative ways of addressing changes in the topography and underpasses). The new Avenue By-law based on the Avenue Study requires at-grade access on new development.
I haven't followed 351 Wallace closely, so I am unable to comment on the Planning Department's handling of that application, with respect to deciding whether to go to the OMB. However, I know that with 1638 Bloor (at Indian Road), the planners were looking for nothing above 10 storeys but decided not to go to the OMB to fight an application for 12 storeys. The planner was opposed to 12 storeys because he predicted that it would set a precedent that would lead to a relative imbalance between the north side of Bloor and the south side of Bloor. (It is very easy to achieve the 45 degree angular plane at the rear of the properties on the north side of Bloor owing to the separation distance from the neighbourhood created by the subway tracks which are very wide along this stretch of Bloor because of the Vincent Yards maintenance tracks. The commercial properties on the south side are separated only by a laneway from the neighbourhood and the 45 degree angular plane is pierced by anything over four storeys, so the south side can only accommodate six storeys, even with a rear stepback after four storeys. The developer had filed an appeal. However, given the odds of winning an argument at the OMB over two storeys and given the stretched resources at the planning department, we all met with the developer and architect and achieved some design concessions on the building to reinforce the cornice line and stepbacks and the OMB appeal was settled prior to a hearing. As I say, I don't know the case at 351 Wallace but it is often the case in negotiated compromises that do not make it to a hearing that the city does get something back even when it concedes on points it does not like. I would like to see the city give Planning a much bigger budget but the city's financial straitjacket is outside the scope of this message.
With respect o Kipling and Islington. Maybe you are not as familiar with the OP as I am after sitting through many, many, many design charrettes and public consultations! So I am just going to gently remind you that Bloor Street, around Islington and Kipling is NOT designated as an "Avenue" in the OP. In this section, Bloor Street is a "Centre" (indicated in red on the OP) and that means that the plan permits tall buildings there. That's why they are builkding them there - because they are allowed and as of right under the plan. Bloor-Dundas is an Avenue, not a Centre, therefore, in general, we will see mid-rise, not high-rise.
With respect to the Giraffe design. I agree that it was not originally a cookie cutter design and even when TAS made changes to hit a lower price point, it was still not bad. I am all in favour of buildings that are contemporary. But the site was too small to allow any transition to the west. On the Dundas frontage, it had a more-or-less sheer vertical plane (again, no space for any stepbacks on the eastern face) making for a very unpleasant pedestrian environment. The building had problems being in that location.
On the mobility hub (as Metrolinx calls it). Yes, Metrolinx thinks that Dundas West/Bloor could be a mobility hub. On paper, it looks promising, since a rail corridor crosses a subway line. However, there are substantial impediments. On the physical impediment side, the TTC has a four-track maintenance tunnel on the south side of the station, so it is currently impossible to create an underground linkage (for example, from 1540 Bloor). It is true that the platforms run east under the Crossways (I think at level 2 of the underground parking) but the Crossways has shown no interest in allowing access through their building. Let's face it, it would cost them a lot of money to make internal changes to realize any returns. The cost-benefit calculation just doesn't make sense, especially as their shopping area is already well above grade. Apart from the phsical impediments, there is very little interchange on the part of passengers. Fewer than 100 people a day get off the current GO Georgetown and even fewer get on. Some of the people who get off work in the Crossways, so they don't transfer to the subway at all. Metrolinx will be studying the options for connection soon, but I am not expecting anything earthshaking (more like a overground walkway along the south side of the used car lot). The projected numbers for the mobility hub in The Big Move are very heavily contingent on the building of the Downtown Relief Line - I'm not holding my breath on that one, especially since the province just halved the funding for Transit City.
Hilary