Quote:
Originally Posted by alps
From an urban design standpoint, this iteration seems like a step down from the previous proposal...
|
Interesting. My take is that the urban form was better in this iteration. LOL.
I liked the better alignment with Clifton and King Streets.
Quote:
Originally Posted by alps
... All the interesting interior laneways and public spaces have been replaced with car parking and driveways...
|
Hmm... I felt they had a decent amount of the interior passages identified as pedestiran priority.
Quote:
Originally Posted by alps
"King Square" is a surface parking lot. "Clifton Green" is a suburban-style blob of landscaping defined by the huge driveways that surround it.
|
Yeah, parking lots do not equal squares. I had to roll my eyes at that too. Some of the images show what looks to be large format paving blocks. If these end up being like Argyle St., I'll be less concerned. I actually kind of like what they've shown for Clifton Green... aerial views of this area show a stark contrast between the green visible from above in this area versus the trees and green just a couple blocks to east, west and south.
Quote:
Originally Posted by alps
The proposed vehicular run-in/run-out on Almon Street (in front of "Building A") should not be allowed. There is a run-in along this stretch at present, but it doesn't interrupt the sidewalk in the same way this one does. These don't work well – pedestrians tend to take the most direct path (i.e. through the driveway or onto the "island") which becomes a safety hazard, because cars are able to enter the run-in at a relatively high speed.
|
Good point. I hadn't considered this.
I do think that this version increases the setbacks from Almon St, which is potentially beneficial. The building with CNIB in it isn't very big, but does feel like it crowds the sidewalk - particularly in late afternoons in the winter when this stretch feels so dark and shadowed.