North Hill Development

[Surrealplaces]

Anything around 4-6 stories on Centre Street is great....all the way up to McKnight. Centre Street has endless possibilities IMO.

Anything up to 8 stories is fine up as far as 16th...maybe even 20th.

4th and Edmonton Trail have good possibilities, but are limited. 4th is quite limited in that the only area that looks to have potential right now is the section from 20th ave to about 25th.

[DizzyEdge]

Even it it was restricted to 20th-25th but was configured really well, I think it would be a huge win. With 20th, although it's a bit of a corridor, the built form is no different than any of the quiet residential streets, so I don't think you could ever hope to go from that to 8 stories, but some sort of densification should be able to work. Probably better to go high lot coverage but 3 story height so the scale seems compatible with SFH residential, even if the density is quite a bit higher.

[Surrealplaces]

Originally Posted by DizzyEdge

Even it it was restricted to 20th-25th but was configured really well, I think it would be a huge win. With 20th, although it's a bit of a corridor, the built form is no different than any of the quiet residential streets, so I don't think you could ever hope to go from that to 8 stories, but some sort of densification should be able to work. Probably better to go high lot coverage but 3 story height so the scale seems compatible with SFH residential, even if the density is quite a bit higher.

I should have clarified that I meant 8 stories along Centre street up to 16th ave, or maybe 20th, but only along Centre street

20th ave would be great for townhouses and maybe stuff up to 3 or 4 stories tops.

[MasterG]

Originally Posted by DizzyEdge

Even it it was restricted to 20th-25th but was configured really well, I think it would be a huge win. With 20th, although it's a bit of a corridor, the built form is no different than any of the quiet residential streets, so I don't think you could ever hope to go from that to 8 stories, but some sort of densification should be able to work. Probably better to go high lot coverage but 3 story height so the scale seems compatible with SFH residential, even if the density is quite a bit higher.

The whole 20th to 16th Area should look like the denser part of renfrew or Lower Mount Royal. Excellent connectivity to all employment centres, excellent transit compared to most areas. 16 should be in that 8-16 range of height, Centre could easily be too.

[jsbertram]

I was thinking a few months ago that with all the problems Sears is having, perhaps they could be persuaded to leave their North Hill Mall location, so that half of the site could be redeveloped.

The rest of the mall (originally a separate property) would remain as is, or upgraded.

The Sears building & surrounding parking lots to the north, east and south could be become a few acres of townhouse / condo towers / office development, and is already connected to major streets and C-Train.

or perhaps SAIT needs more room to expand westward?

What else could you suggest for the Sears site?

[DizzyEdge]

Ok I understand now

I think 20th would be great for developments like this:


http://pauljohnston.com


http://www.richmondbizsense.com/2014...es-in-the-fan/

Not a huge fan of fake old, but if need be maybe this

http://www.diynetwork.com/home-impro...res/index.html

Maybe, we could bump it up to this, hard to say

http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-8894...an-street.html

I think they key is to not make it seem like it's the first step to turning the area into the 2nd Beltline.

I suspect, and perhaps I'll get a better idea tonight, that since the area is sort of the transition zone between innercity and suburbia, that people feel they have the best of both worlds (close to innercity, perks of quiet suburbia). Therefore they probably wouldn't see what density would do for them. Density on 16th or Centre bringing shops and restaurants, sure that brings obviously perks. Twice as many people living on 20th (with perhaps twice as many vehicles requiring parking)? not so obvious benefit for existing residents.

[DizzyEdge]

Originally Posted by jsbertram

I was thinking a few months ago that with all the problems Sears is having, perhaps they could be persuaded to leave their North Hill Mall location, so that half of the site could be redeveloped.

The rest of the mall (originally a separate property) would remain as is, or upgraded.

The Sears building & surrounding parking lots could be become a few acres of townhouse / condo towers / office development, and is already connected to major streets and C-Train.

or perhaps SAIT needs more room to expand westward?

What else could you suggest for the Sears site?

Pretty much anything would be better in my opinion. But you're right, huge potential with major road and transit route right there. The Sears portion of the property and its associated parking is larger than two full city blocks.

[Full Mountain]

Originally Posted by DizzyEdge

Pretty much anything would be better in my opinion. But you're right, huge potential with major road and transit route right there. The Sears portion of the property and its associated parking is larger than two full city blocks.

The big issue with this site and others on 16th is overcoming the large roadways that border the site without the development turning it's back on the road completely. That's not to say that it isn't possible, I just don't know how you would achieve it. 6 lanes of traffic (even at 50km/h) is not a particularly pedestrian friendly thing.

[Full Mountain]

Originally Posted by DizzyEdge

Ok I understand now

I think 20th would be great for developments like this:

I think they key is to not make it seem like it's the first step to turning the area into the 2nd Beltline.

I suspect, and perhaps I'll get a better idea tonight, that since the area is sort of the transition zone between innercity and suburbia, that people feel they have the best of both worlds (close to innercity, perks of quiet suburbia). Therefore they probably wouldn't see what density would do for them. Density on 16th or Centre bringing shops and restaurants, sure that brings obviously perks. Twice as many people living on 20th (with perhaps twice as many vehicles requiring parking)? not so obvious benefit for existing residents.

I think those type of development would be perfect for 20th, even 10th could be redeveloped with buildings like that.

I think one would need to motivate the general community to support this, it seems like a lot of the folks that get involved with CA's and issues like this, live at the negative end of the spectrum. Getting people that support this to speak up would be critical to the success.

[DizzyEdge]

Regarding the inner streets, I think the R-2 or whatever it's called now is fine in theory, the problem is that for every single small house on a good sized lot being replaced with a duplex, another is replaced with a large duplex sized single home. A full duplex build out would give you Toronto innercity community density, but not if every 2nd redevelopment is just a large house. Not sure what the solution is other than going one level of density higher, or across the community basement legal basement suites.

[DizzyEdge]

Originally Posted by Full Mountain

The big issue with this site and others on 16th is overcoming the large roadways that border the site without the development turning it's back on the road completely. That's not to say that it isn't possible, I just don't know how you would achieve it. 6 lanes of traffic (even at 50km/h) is not a particularly pedestrian friendly thing.

Yeah I don't really know. The plus is new developments will need wider sidewalks, and if you had at grade retail with office above, you could have the residential portions facing inwards, but the retail/office facing the street.

[DizzyEdge]

Originally Posted by Full Mountain

I think those type of development would be perfect for 20th, even 10th could be redeveloped with buildings like that.

I think one would need to motivate the general community to support this, it seems like a lot of the folks that get involved with CA's and issues like this, live at the negative end of the spectrum. Getting people that support this to speak up would be critical to the success.

Plus lots of visuals of how it could look, with some sort of power to ensure that the better examples are what the planning dept approves.

[Full Mountain]

Originally Posted by DizzyEdge

Regarding the inner streets, I think the R-2 or whatever it's called now is fine in theory, the problem is that for every single small house on a good sized lot being replaced with a duplex, another is replaced with a large duplex sized single home. A full duplex build out would give you Toronto innercity community density, but not if every 2nd redevelopment is just a large house. Not sure what the solution is other than going one level of density higher, or across the community basement legal basement suites.

Truthfully I haven't seen many single homes on 50' lots come through in the past couple months, most single detached DPs that we've seen are on 25' lots. We've seen a number that are 2 detached homes on what was a 50' lot that was subdivided.

IMO the secondary suite motion that will be going to council in the near future will have a significant impact on density.

The majority of Mount Pleasant (I'm not sure of the rest of the ARP area) is zoned RC-2 - Residential/Contextual - One/Two dwelling.

[Full Mountain]

Originally Posted by DizzyEdge

Yeah I don't really know. The plus is new developments will need wider sidewalks, and if you had at grade retail with office above, you could have the residential portions facing inwards, but the retail/office facing the street.

My concern is that even with wide sidewalks the traffic will make the area feel inhospitable, especially during the winter months. Creation of some sort of separation from the traffic would help, but the street then becomes less complete and it can reduce the discouragement to speed.

[Full Mountain]

Originally Posted by DizzyEdge

Plus lots of visuals of how it could look, with some sort of power to ensure that the better examples are what the planning dept approves.

Therein lies the slippery slope, I'd be curious how the Beltline Planning Group works with this issue to ensure that the developments reach a certain level of quality and what do you use to measure that so it doesn't come down to personal preference.

[Chadillaccc]

Even a signature highrise at Centre and 16th would be good. Keep most things in the 4 - 8 storey range along both stretches, but then maybe have a 14 - 16 storey mixed-use office hotel building on that corner.

[DizzyEdge]

Originally Posted by Chadillaccc

Even a signature highrise at Centre and 16th would be good. Keep most things in the 4 - 8 storey range along both stretches, but then maybe have a 14 - 16 storey mixed-use office hotel building on that corner.

Yeah I agree, really I'd be into higher density at all major intersections than the density levels of the streets leading to that intersection. 3 of the 4 corners at 16th and Centre should be redeveloped.

[speedog]

So back in reality, what we will see is low-medium rise buildings along Centre Street all the way up to 40th Avenue. Some low-medium rise developments in Mount Pleasant along 16th and 17th Avenues and that will be just about it - maybe a smattering of builds on Edmonton Trail. Realistically, there's not going to any multi-story developments along 4th Street NW except possibly in the 24-26th Avenue area and even then, it'll be limited.

Centre Street stands to see the most transformation and it will build out from downtown - even this will be decades to come. As far as Sears, it's just a matter of time before that retail chain is gone and that end of North Hill is redeveloped.

Now with respect to the North Hill, it's going to be difficult to change the mindset of the home owners there - a lot of them are there because they want a single family home close in to downtown and it is one of the most economical areas to get that right now aside from Mayland Heights or Southview.. We used to live/own in Mount Pleasant and now live/own just on the edge of the North Hill area (Highwood) - we only moved away from Mount Pleasant because we saw the changes coming on 16th Avenue and didn't want that busier road to only be a block away from our 17th Avenue home. Even our own community mirrors the mindset of many North Hill homeowners - your own SFH in a close-in community with relatively good access to get to many parts of the city and trust me when I say that people in these communities will push back against denser developments. That said, some of the current developments being built along 17th Avenue in Mount Pleasant are a sign of change - the question is whether or not that type of development will move northward.

Ask any of the 40+ home owners on our 60 year old street and they'll all be against any lot sub-divisions that allow tall, narrow 2 story homes or duplexes. That's not to say it isn't starting to appear in our community but there is a lot of opposition to that style of housing - where it's starting to appear is on less desirable and busier streets and not in the core of the community. If anything, we are seeing older bungalows that are in pretty much original condition getting bulldozed and replaced by larger 2 story homes on a 60' lot and believe it or not, we've also seen some new bungalows built in the past few years - something you won't see in Mount Pleasant.

So yeah, I can support denser communities and I can see the reasoning for it but I'm not ready for it in my back yard yet - my block of bungalows with huge spaces between our homes is not something I'm ready to give up yet. I like having 20 feet between my home and the neighbor on either side - enough for an elderly apple tree. Yupp, almost enough room between homes for an infill - that's almost scary.

[gantenbein]

Originally Posted by DizzyEdge

Yeah I agree, really I'd be into higher density at all major intersections than the density levels of the streets leading to that intersection. 3 of the 4 corners at 16th and Centre should be redeveloped.

Ditto. A 10-15-storey apartment building on the southeast corner (old Brick site) would be great...with a Whole Foods in the ground floor.

There would be zero shadow implications for immediate residents, so I don't know on what grounds anyone could object (access to underground parking could be from Centre A St. and the lane that runs parallel to 16th.

And I definitely wouldn't miss the N.E. block with the dental practice, Subway etc.

[DizzyEdge]

Originally Posted by speedog

So back in reality, what we will see is low-medium rise buildings along Centre Street all the way up to 40th Avenue. Some low-medium rise developments in Mount Pleasant along 16th and 17th Avenues and that will be just about it - maybe a smattering of builds on Edmonton Trail. Realistically, there's not going to any multi-story developments along 4th Street NW except possibly in the 24-26th Avenue area and even then, it'll be limited.

I might have agreed, but if a lot like this not even on one of the main drags was able to get a 5 unit building approved, it seems likely the same could get approved on a busier street like 4th St.

https://maps.google.ca/maps?saddr=21...44.18,,0,-3.19

(what's funny is I would actually prefer 5 unit buildings not be there, but on 4th instead)

Honestly I expect the main concern of higher density will be what is always the concern: on street parking.