Canadian City Proposals

[Coldrsx]

One of the best remaining lots in the city has a new proposal with only 20 units.





https://theclifton.ca

[ScreamingViking]

Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper

Two Centuries ago? Have you been to a European town from this era? The post war era created the foundation for paving paradise and putting up parking lots. It takes too long at our rate to growth in a mixed economy to redevelop on a huge neighbourhood scale with the populist planning ideas of today.

The Greenbelt has failed at stopping sprawl. Development is already leap frogging the Greenbelt. It's a wash to me whether development digs up a field in the Greenbelt or a field in the great beyond. Growth in the great beyond will have to travel further. Go Transit's catchment continues to expand outwards to meet that need.

My point still stands. Ford is the best thing for intensification particular grandiose master plans and heights that make planners frown, NIMBYs lose their minds and, many of us aroused. Yet opening up an insignificant portion of the Greenbelt gets all the attention.

What do European towns have to do with what I wrote? There's just a longer history of changing local environments in ways that were poorly understood over there. And does post-war growth have to continue to happen the way it has? I don't think so, we can do better.

Had we recognized the value of wetlands, we would not have drained marshes, built harbours where we did, filled in "swamps"... conservation authorities are trying to recreate some of what has been lost, realizing that with changing climate will come changes in weather patterns, and these efforts may help stem flooding from 100-year storms that now occur every 10 years or less.

Our cities would look very different. The one I call home may not even exist in its current form without all the fill that went into creating the commercial port and industrial hub.

Greenbelt lands can be viewed as a "boundary" to try and curb sprawl, or they can be viewed as protection for vulnerable ecosystems. There may be other ways to protect the sensitive lands, but it's also about recognizing that lands adjacent to wetlands or river sources or moraines play a key role in the health of those ecological features. Significance, to me, relates to the function of the lands that have been opened up for development, not their area.

Ford is great for intensification and development -- you can have your point about that. But his policies are also going to add costs to municipalities, and they're also removing revenue tools local governments rely on to pay for the infrastructure to support the new development. Maybe the Ontario PCs have a plan to cover that, but it's not been communicated. And right now the optics of it all are not good.

[WhipperSnapper]

You don't have to go back two centuries when the post war era is by far the most damaging to the ecology. Suits in corporate offices paid to explicitly improve cost efficiencies at all costs wasn't much of a thing two centuries ago. Generational families own lands. Regardless, I don't care all that much on what could have been. I care about what is now and what can be done. The

I'm aware The Greenbelt's existence is mostly as a means to curb sprawl. Political support was more to increase property values than being green though. It's failing particularly when properties values have become more and more unattainable. Development is accelerating beyond its borders. I'm not saying it doesn't matter when and where. It simply doesn't matter as much whether a new housing development springs up in the Greenbelt wood lot or a woodlot beyond it. It's replacing paradise with a parking lot somewhere.

I recognize the massive number of people the GTA takes in every year and the dwindling land supply inside the Greenbelt. I wish we could house growth strictly through intensification while maintaining affordability but, it's just not sustainable to improve the planning errors of the past on a required grand scale with the ownership rights we have in the city.

I just find the reaction to opening up the Greenbelt overblown. I would understand more if the province wasn't also actively working to streamline the legislative process for intensification. I'm not surprised by the reaction. First, Torontonians love to believe that they live a much greener lifestyle than they do. Second. It's a controversial Ford decision.

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally Posted by Coldrsx

One of the best remaining lots in the city has a new proposal with only 20 units.





https://theclifton.ca

I don't see any design standard for the rando balconies.

[Coldrsx]

I believe it is tied to unit size/layout for there are only 20 units, total.

[Maldive]

34-42 Maitland l 198m l 61s l TC Core l Turner Fleischer l pre-construction

A nearly 200 metre tower to be grafted on to heritage buildings - though the (very large) south heritage facade would be retained, some very nice interiors would face the wrecking-ball. The good news is the 584 units would be rentals.


Northern Light

Existing heritage buildings.


Northern Light

Northern Light


700 University Avenue | 196.41m | 57s | KingSett Capital | KPMB l Approved

Some new renderings below: this one was approved in early 2022 and the teal-coloured residential tower component would have 57 storeys of rental units right next to the University of Toronto… so get moving Kingsett. The project also includes a 4 storey addition to the existing 24 storey curved office building and a complete revamp of the public space and building lobby at the corner of University and College (across from Queens Park and the Ontario Legislature).

New rendering of the residential tower (which has triangular floor-plates) looking north-west:


Adamson

New rendering looking south at the entire project which includes the 4 storey addition to the office building that would host Life Sciences “Exploration Labs”.


Adamson

Lobby


Adamson

UT

[ScreamingViking]

Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper

I just find the reaction to opening up the Greenbelt overblown. I would understand more if the province wasn't also actively working to streamline the legislative process for intensification. I'm not surprised by the reaction. First, Torontonians love to believe that they live a much greener lifestyle than they do. Second. It's a controversial Ford decision.

And the OPP and probably the Auditor General will be looking carefully at those Ford decisions. Does he care? Probably not. He'll be in some well-paid position looking after a golden goose soon after he's out of the political limelight.

For me, the Greenbelt was a carefully defined area. Politics drove it, but they relied on science too. There's still plenty of land within it for development, if it's done in a balanced way. I completely disagree with the deck being stacked toward serving the development community, the way it has been under this government. We *need* housing to fit the immigration targets, but we can be smarter about how that is built.

[yaletown_fella]

Originally Posted by ScreamingViking

And the OPP and probably the Auditor General will be looking carefully at those Ford decisions. Does he care? Probably not. He'll be in some well-paid position looking after a golden goose soon after he's out of the political limelight.

For me, the Greenbelt was a carefully defined area. Politics drove it, but they relied on science too. There's still plenty of land within it for development, if it's done in a balanced way. I completely disagree with the deck being stacked toward serving the development community, the way it has been under this government. We *need* housing to fit the immigration targets, but we can be smarter about how that is built.

They relied on the science of enriching a select few, and helped the BOC/government make buying and renting unaffordable in the process.

The main motivator of the greenbelt wasnt conservation, but lining the pockets of wealthy homeowners through creating artificial scarcity. Theres a huge correlation between the enactment of Places to Grow and land inflation.

By making condos the number one option for families, it artificially inflated their cost overnight. I may not care to ever live in a cookie cutter SFH neighbourhood in the 905, but re-opening the free market to home construction is key to help bringing down housing costs in Toronto proper as well. It means less yuppie families competing with us to rent or buy in the city.

It's the second biggest contributing factor in the housing being overpriced in the GTA, the largest contributing factor being the cheap money addiction/low rates/debt monetization by the BOC.

I'd rather companies who build housing get wealthy, rather than companies and individuals get wealthy by just holding onto land and doing nothing with it.

[Innsertnamehere]

Originally Posted by ScreamingViking

And the OPP and probably the Auditor General will be looking carefully at those Ford decisions. Does he care? Probably not. He'll be in some well-paid position looking after a golden goose soon after he's out of the political limelight.

For me, the Greenbelt was a carefully defined area. Politics drove it, but they relied on science too. There's still plenty of land within it for development, if it's done in a balanced way. I completely disagree with the deck being stacked toward serving the development community, the way it has been under this government. We *need* housing to fit the immigration targets, but we can be smarter about how that is built.

The Greenbelt has been a lot more "porous" than many realize, even in it's relatively short life. The liberals made several tweaks to the boundaries without any fanfare over the years.

Notably, the lands in Ancaster being removed from the greenbelt were not originally within it when it was first established in 2006. They were added at some point by the Liberals - Ford is simply reversing that. It's the same storey with the lands in Pickering Ford removed.

In fact, there are only a very small amount of lands Ford is removing that aren't "previously not in the greenbelt" or small boundary tweaks to reflect actual natural heritage boundaries.

Ultimately, the greenbelt is entirely arbitrary as well. It's not like it protects some uniquely special farmland - the exact line of it is very arbitrary and there was a TON of horsetrading made behind closed doors back in the day to determine where that line was drawn.

[Zeej]

Surely that Maitland project is a joke? Like I know April 1st is a few months away, but that can't be a serious attempt at architecture in a sophisticated city.

[ScreamingViking]

Ok, I guess I'm wrong. There are a lot of people I know in government who designed this with good intentions, based on science and what made sense at the time. Politics were always a part of it.

Originally Posted by Innsertnamehere

The Greenbelt has been a lot more "porous" than many realize, even in it's relatively short life. The liberals made several tweaks to the boundaries without any fanfare over the years.

Notably, the lands in Ancaster being removed from the greenbelt were not originally within it when it was first established in 2006. They were added at some point by the Liberals - Ford is simply reversing that. It's the same storey with the lands in Pickering Ford removed.

In fact, there are only a very small amount of lands Ford is removing that aren't "previously not in the greenbelt" or small boundary tweaks to reflect actual natural heritage boundaries.

Ultimately, the greenbelt is entirely arbitrary as well. It's not like it protects some uniquely special farmland - the exact line of it is very arbitrary and there was a TON of horsetrading made behind closed doors back in the day to determine where that line was drawn.

[WhipperSnapper]

The majority of ideas have good intentions behind them. Unfortunately, the powers that be that finance those ideas have usually grander ambitions. The real estate investment community have been puppet masters of the Ontario PC when Ford was still making envelopes. It didn't start with him. That shouldn't be construed that all parties at all levels aren't financially influenced by the real estate investment community across Canada. Mulroney's 100 million person goal for Canada to stay globally relevant is one of the only things that has political consensus across all parties and it not necessarily good intentions behind it.

[goodgrowth]

Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper

The majority of ideas have good intentions behind them. Unfortunately, the powers that be that finance those ideas have usually grander ambitions. The real estate investment community have been puppet masters of the Ontario PC when Ford was still making envelopes. It didn't start with him. That shouldn't be construed that all parties at all levels aren't financially influenced by the real estate investment community across Canada. Mulroney's 100 million person goal for Canada to stay globally relevant is one of the only things that has political consensus across all parties and it not necessarily good intentions behind it.

Politicians only have leverage to begin with because of the extensive and slow land use/development approval regulatory apparatus. The excessive bureaucracy essentially makes it ripe for a quid-pro-quo/lobbying environment for development.

[Coldrsx]

Very Tokyo-esque.

[Hali87]

CTV: 3,000 residential units planned for Shannon Park harbourfront neighbourhood

There are 86 acres of vacant harbourfront land in Dartmouth, N.S., that are being eyed as part of a major housing development that's been in the works since 2014.

Canada Lands, a federal Crown corporation that specializes in real estate and development, owns the Shannon Park site which has sat vacant for nearly 25 years.

The company has now put the finishing touches on a site masterplan that will transform the former military site into a thriving neighbourhood community that would include 3,000 residential units and commercial spaces.

Halifax is one of the fastest-growing urban centres in the country, only second to Moncton, and as the population grows, many are eager to get housing developments like this one going.

"We've been working on the master plan for a number of years," said Mary Jarvis, a senior director with Canada Lands. "And when we acquired the site we made a commitment to fully look at all of the features that we could include in the site."

Shannon Park's proposal would be a pedestrian-friendly community that would include 23 city blocks, 3,000 residential units, 150,000 square feet of commercial space and two parks spread across 7.5 acres of parkland and a pathway and trail system with access to the waterfront.

...

As they redevelop federal lands across the country, Jarvis says affordable housing is an important pillar of the Canada Lands mandate.

“We expect to provide more than the HRM’s requirement of affordable housing," said Jarvis. "Our standard is 20 percent of residential units that are provided on-site are affordable."

In terms of a timeline, the development is considered to be in its early stages and pending all approvals would be 10 to 15 years away from completion.

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper

I don't see any design standard for the rando balconies.

Originally Posted by Coldrsx

One of the best remaining lots in the city has a new proposal with only 20 units.





https://theclifton.ca

Location and building reminds me of the Juliana Apartments in Ottawa, built in the early 60s. It's the small white block, centre left, between the crane (new library) and built-up area of the escarpment district. Site is far nicer when you see it in person, above the escarpment.

Originally Posted by Maldive

34-42 Maitland l 198m l 61s l TC Core l Turner Fleischer l pre-construction

A nearly 200 metre tower to be grafted on to heritage buildings - though the (very large) south heritage facade would be retained, some very nice interiors would face the wrecking-ball. The good news is the 584 units would be rentals.


Northern Light

Existing heritage buildings.


Northern Light

Northern Light

Facadism or are they preserving the entire buildings, structures, interiors and all?

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Hali87

CTV: 3,000 residential units planned for Shannon Park harbourfront neighbourhood

IMO quite underwhelming and captures the essence of one factor behind the current housing shortage.

The site was cleared around 2014 or so and I think people may have stopped living in most of it as early as the 90's. The plan is for some blocks with apartment buildings. Nothing especially complicated. It would be a big deal if there were some kind of 3,000 unit affordable government housing plan coming online right now.

[koops65]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

Facadism or are they preserving the entire buildings, structures, interiors and all?

Totally gutting the interior...

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by koops65

Totally gutting the interior...

Looking a these buildings and how well they've ben preserved, I'm assuming the interiors probably still have some amazing original features like wood work, mouldings, fireplace mantels and such.

[koops65]

There are pix on UT of the interior and I think it looks pretty nice actually...