221-227 Stradbrook Ave - 18 Storey Residential Apartment

[Wpg_Guy]

The city should have said no to the parkade, put it underground, that area could have been used for a second or third tower that would have been a true TOD.

[Wolf13]

Originally Posted by buzzg

I think if you look at the area surrounding Harkness Station exactly as it is today, it’s not a great location – but that’s ignoring the potential. It was also built as the last stop on the transitway because the city knew Union Station was/is 10-15 years away from opening unfortunately.

There’s a TON of un- or under-developed land within a 2 minute walk of the station. This project is evidence of that, the corner lot beside it, the one story strip mall across the street could be redeveloped, there’s half a city block that’s flattened now where the MB Housing was – ripe for dense redevelopment. Not to mention all the space between this project and WWC could be much better used.

This station is great in that it wasn’t developed with a sea of parking and roads separating it from potential “TOD” like many of the upcoming ones, and there’s lots of potential for new, denser development around it.

There's a ton of potential there in terms of size and location. There is enough space to build a localized mini village complete with shops and everything, but it's kinda alone. If this were Vancouver, thie would be 4-5 towers and shops, but it isn't.

Originally Posted by Wpg_Guy

The city should have said no to the parkade, put it underground, that area could have been used for a second or third tower that would have been a true TOD.

I see where you're coming from but that's far too strong and expensive of a restriction to put on land that hasn't been in huge demand, that somebody owns and paid money for. You have to respect the owner's rights. If our market were stronger, the developer would have pursued this.

[buzzg]

I think the area is super attractive for development – about to have 10 minute access to U of M, close to OV, and right by downtown while not paying quite downtown prices. I’d love for MH to put their property on the market and see what happens. I think we’d get some good development proposals.

The parkade would be fine if they would have kept the commercial or at least even the townhouses in front of it.

[dmacc]

Originally Posted by buzzg

I think the area is super attractive for development – about to have 10 minute access to U of M, close to OV, and right by downtown while not paying quite downtown prices. I’d love for MH to put their property on the market and see what happens. I think we’d get some good development proposals.

The parkade would be fine if they would have kept the commercial or at least even the townhouses in front of it.

It was essentially the City that told the developer they had to add more parking which forced the developer to get rid of the townhouses.

[Wolf13]

Originally Posted by buzzg

I think the area is super attractive for development – about to have 10 minute access to U of M, close to OV, and right by downtown while not paying quite downtown prices. I’d love for MH to put their property on the market and see what happens. I think we’d get some good development proposals.

The parkade would be fine if they would have kept the commercial or at least even the townhouses in front of it.

In principle, but functionally speaking, I think it's just a touch too far away from everything. For a first go at a rapid transit residential hub, it would need to be right adjacent to the amenities/Osborne.

Originally Posted by dmacc

It was essentially the City that told the developer they had to add more parking which forced the developer to get rid of the townhouses.

Now THIS I disagree with. Let the market, the developer, the tenant decide how much parking is needed. Seriously, it's right by rapid transit.

That's hardly different than forcing them to do underground parking... forcing them to pay for more parking work and forego that townhome revenue

[borkborkbork]

Can someone give a link to the decision where the city forced them to add parking?

Going back to 2014, where they first pitched this building with 162 parking spots, the city planners wrote:

With regard to the parking management plan, the Urban Planning Division recommends and encourages that the minimum required number of parking stalls for the development not be exceeded, as per TOD principles. In addition, reduced parking numbers below the minimum required amount to provide 80% of the required parking, would be considered as long as reasonable alternative options are provided to offset the parking deficiency. This would be determined at the parking management plan approval stage.

The current version has more parking spots than 162, I think -- If I recall right, it exceeds minimum parking (contrary to this recommendation)?

[buzzg]

Originally Posted by Wolf13

In principle, but functionally speaking, I think it's just a touch too far away from everything. For a first go at a rapid transit residential hub, it would need to be right adjacent to the amenities/Osborne.

But if the whole point of TOD around the RT stations is to have great access to said transit, why does it matter if they’re not right at Osborne? Lots of people don’t want to live really close to high streets, they can be busy and loud. Plus all this ripe TOD land could have commercial in it. There’s also a small grocery store across Donald, 3 minute walk away.

—-

Yeah i don’t ever remember hearing anything about the city forcing more parking. IIRC the developer came back with the amendments and city accepted.

[dmacc]

Originally Posted by buzzg

But if the whole point of TOD around the RT stations is to have great access to said transit, why does it matter if they’re not right at Osborne? Lots of people don’t want to live really close to high streets, they can be busy and loud. Plus all this ripe TOD land could have commercial in it. There’s also a small grocery store across Donald, 3 minute walk away.

—-

Yeah i don’t ever remember hearing anything about the city forcing more parking. IIRC the developer came back with the amendments and city accepted.

I want to say it was bomberjet who mentioned the original proposal didn't have enough parking. Don't quote me on this but I believe the original had 1 stall for every suite and the City said it had to be 1.25, at which point the developer got rid of the town homes that were planned so they could add the additional parking.

It's all in this thread... somewhere.

[dmacc]

Originally Posted by dmacc

The city told them they needed more parking and instead of adding another level of parking they took out the town houses. it's too bad, I liked the townhouses.

Maybe I'm wrong, this was all I could find in an earlier post, I'm just spreading fake news. I could have sworn someone here mentioned it.

[dmacc]

Originally Posted by dmacc

The city told them they needed more parking and instead of adding another level of parking they took out the town houses. it's too bad, I liked the townhouses.

Originally Posted by buzzg

Are you sure? I know they added parking but it doesn't look like the parkade footprint is any closer to Stradbrook than the original.

Also, I think the Parker neighbourhood looks pretty good but there's a fatal flaw to me – the housing is so far from the stops! I think it's because of the hydro ROW, but the station is in the middle of a field.

Originally Posted by trueviking

Yes. That’s why. It’s too bad.

I rode my bike in there a few days ago. Hilarious to see them building huge rapid transit stations in a forest.

Trueviking corroborated my story last year, I knew it was a thing.

[bomberjet]

twas not me.

[LilZebra]

Originally Posted by headhorse

^ until we get serious about removing cars from roads, developments like these will be a tough sell to provide space that is not for cars.

Manhattan in NYC ... you cant "eliminate cars" from roads. Impossible.

a townhouse that is 10 feet from a busy, wide, noisy road would not be a pleasant or safe place for a family to live.

• Video Link

and

• Video Link


Manhattan has towering office, condos, apartments. Noisy traffic -- taxis, cars, buses honking horns. Noisy motorcycles speeding by. Psychotic people yelling at nothing. Emergency vehicle sirens... The list goes on.

Yet people PAY to live there because of the urban atmosphere ... the "urbanity". Its somehow "successful". Some of the most pricey real estate on this planet.


Manhattan's got many subway lines and is one of the BEST (accessible) for getting around ont this planet. But they still have surface traffic. Its not going away, no matter how many new subway tunnels they build.

[bomberjet]

I went to an event in the old hut K space downtown. Walked over from Pacific to Ross where the new apartments are. I thought wow, look at this place. Feels like I'm in a dense neighbourhood somewhere in New York. 6 storey building lining the block and it felt awesome. Then turned around and it was a bleak landscape of parking slots.

I would love to live in a neighourhood like that.

[Curmudgeon]

^ Existing laws (the Highway Traffic Act and city by-laws) with respect to honking horns need to be enforced. I can't understand why people feel the need to honk their horn when they area starting their vehicle with command start or locking their doors. Completely clueless and selfish. The vehicle's settings can be adjusted. Lots of revenue to be raised while eliminating what is very anti-social and destructive behaviour.

[Andy6]

Originally Posted by bomberjet

I went to an event in the old hut K space downtown. Walked over from Pacific to Ross where the new apartments are. I thought wow, look at this place. Feels like I'm in a dense neighbourhood somewhere in New York. 6 storey building lining the block and it felt awesome. Then turned around and it was a bleak landscape of parking slots.

I would love to live in a neighourhood like that.

For about three years ... that’s about as long as anyone I know could stand Manhattan.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by bomberjet

I went to an event in the old hut K space downtown. Walked over from Pacific to Ross where the new apartments are. I thought wow, look at this place. Feels like I'm in a dense neighbourhood somewhere in New York. 6 storey building lining the block and it felt awesome. Then turned around and it was a bleak landscape of parking slots.

I would love to live in a neighourhood like that.

It really does look pretty cool. It would be nice to see some development happening north of there, like in that block which is almost entirely unused/underused buildings. It would also be great to see the parking lot get filled in but I suppose there is simply too much demand, what with the closure of the PSB parkade, to have that happen now. I hope Marketplace has enough of a parkade to hurt demand for surface spaces... it might encourage some development.

That area of Princess is a bit like Osborne Village, so much development on the side streets but little on the main drag itself.

[cllew]

Originally Posted by Curmudgeon

^ Existing laws (the Highway Traffic Act and city by-laws) with respect to honking horns need to be enforced. I can't understand why people feel the need to honk their horn when they area starting their vehicle with command start or locking their doors. Completely clueless and selfish. The vehicle's settings can be adjusted. Lots of revenue to be raised while eliminating what is very anti-social and destructive behaviour.

Try working shift work and living by a high school where the kids all drive. I didn't need to look at a clock to know when it was close to 8am (school starting) or noon when they remote started their cars in the winter to go to lunch.

In modern times the cars beeping replace the sounds of the old factory time whistles.

[buzzg]

Originally Posted by esquire

It really does look pretty cool. It would be nice to see some development happening north of there, like in that block which is almost entirely unused/underused buildings. It would also be great to see the parking lot get filled in but I suppose there is simply too much demand, what with the closure of the PSB parkade, to have that happen now. I hope Marketplace has enough of a parkade to hurt demand for surface spaces... it might encourage some development.

That area of Princess is a bit like Osborne Village, so much development on the side streets but little on the main drag itself.

Part of what makes the Boyce Lofts so nice, aside from the materials and nice rythym of the building, is that it's built on a nice street with big, mature trees, and a park across the street. Filling in that parking lot with a mixed-income/diverse-use residential building could be completely transformative for that area. With RRC expansion, Marketlands on the horizon, and more development going on more north on Princess, it's not hard to see that area becoming the residential hub of the West Exchange. It's really nice around there.

--

The main reason why Princess, King (aside from the corner at Bannatyne/OMS), and to an extent Osborne are way behind where they "should" be in terms of neighbourhood high streets, is because they've been designated as the main thoroughfare in the area and designed for traffic efficiency first. It's unfortunate that King and Princess connect directly to Smith and Donald, one of the main and busiest access points to downtown. I'd almost start cutting our losses on Main Street, and try and disconnect King/Princess from Smith/Donald a bit.

[Wolf13]

Originally Posted by buzzg

But if the whole point of TOD around the RT stations is to have great access to said transit, why does it matter if they’re not right at Osborne? Lots of people don’t want to live really close to high streets, they can be busy and loud. Plus all this ripe TOD land could have commercial in it. There’s also a small grocery store across Donald, 3 minute walk away.

—-

Yeah i don’t ever remember hearing anything about the city forcing more parking. IIRC the developer came back with the amendments and city accepted.

And those people who don't want to live close to busy areas will pick a more suburban place to live... but generally speaking if someone likes a car-less life, they will be ok with more activity. they're used to being around people.

Generally speaking, you want all your necessities right near you, whether that's grocery, pharmacy, or preferred entertainment/food/retail. You don't want to have to get on a bus to access that, even if the station is right by a store (unless it's a major destination, which osborne could have been).

People prefer to live on foot, and transit is merely a convenient alternative to a car, not to, well, feet. And that grocery store on Donald is as far as Osborne, almost. Transit is to get to work, or another destination further away. Immediate daily life has to be right in front of you.

People like bungalows because human tendency is not to use the stairs at every opportunity. People psychologically don't maximize the uses of their basements unless they MUST (or it has the most stuff for whatever reason). Therefore a developer will always look for locations that put tenants right by the action.

You're right, some people prefer quieter lives, but those are larger cities where the Osbornes already are packed with higher density and better transit access. This project might do fine, but it's not ideally situated.

[Curmudgeon]

Originally Posted by Wolf13

And those people who don't want to live close to busy areas will pick a more suburban place to live... but generally speaking if someone likes a car-less life, they will be ok with more activity. they're used to being around people.

Generally speaking, you want all your necessities right near you, whether that's grocery, pharmacy, or preferred entertainment/food/retail. You don't want to have to get on a bus to access that, even if the station is right by a store (unless it's a major destination, which osborne could have been).

People prefer to live on foot, and transit is merely a convenient alternative to a car, not to, well, feet. And that grocery store on Donald is as far as Osborne, almost. Transit is to get to work, or another destination further away. Immediate daily life has to be right in front of you..............

Downtown is less convenient than the suburbs. At night there is little to nothing open. So if you live on Waterfront Drive or in the Avenue Building for example, where do you go at midnight that's within walking distance if you want to get a sandwich, buy a bag of chips or if you have run out of milk? Circle K at River and Osborne or the retail area around Marion & St. Mary's is a long walk, esp. if it's cold outside. There used to be a Mac's on Hargrave near Cumberland, is that still there?

At night the Regent & Day area is more thriving than is Portage & Main. Strange place indeed.