Redevelopment Plans for Unused/Underutilized Sights

Simpseatles · #1 Posted **Sep 25, 2011, 7:01 PM**

Instead of hijacking the London Malls thread, I thought I would post my plans for the redevelopment of London Mall here. This can be a place to post any descriptions, maps, renderings, sketches, or concepts that you have for places like the old South Street Hospital, the soon to be closed Mental Health Centre, or any other urban sights, whether it be small infill or a large complex.

My concept for the London Mall sight would include 6 towers or varying heights with setbacks that have large retail stores facing Oxford and Wonderland on a 2 story podium. There would be scenic tree-lined promenades on both streets, and in between the buildings themselves. There would be smaller retail, mixed with entrances to the buildings in here. In the centre would be a circle, with a water fountain. Transit usership would be encouraged in this "node" with a new busway (or potentially light rail line) going along the back of the development, and with 2 stations for east, and westbound buses on either side of Oxford. The busway would go east to at least Western road, and join Oxford street to the West. Parking lots, and connections to other buses would be nearby the stations. Parking for out of area visitors would be located near the busway, and parking for residents would be underground.

http://s1141.photobucket.com/albums/n596/Simpseatles/

What do you guys think?

manny_santos · #2 Posted **Sep 25, 2011, 11:28 PM**

I like the design a lot, but this type of design would be very difficult for the location due to the elevation drop at the intersection. One solution would be for the ground floor of the building to be at the same elevation as the road, with the floors below that being used for parking.

Or we could just go with Snark's idea and preserve the great heritage of the existing building by building on top of what's already there.

Simpseatles · #3 Posted **Sep 26, 2011, 2:11 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by manny_santos

I like the design a lot, but this type of design would be very difficult for the location due to the elevation drop at the intersection. One solution would be for the ground floor of the building to be at the same elevation as the road, with the floors below that being used for parking.

Or we could just go with Snark's idea and preserve the great heritage of the existing building by building on top of what's already there.

Thanks for the input! You're very right about the elevation drop. That darn thing was the one thing that slipped my mind when coming up with this.

The scale may be slightly off too so it may not be the most accurate, but hey, this was my first attempt.

I like Snark's version too!

Wharn · #4 Posted **Sep 26, 2011, 4:54 AM**

I like the underlying concept, especially the idea of having street-level retail. I also like the nod to Progress Avenue in Scarberia, where there is another development somewhat like this one... which leads me to my reservations. Progress Avenue has a very detached and impersonal feel to it, since the residential towers are so high. I'd like to see the maximum height of your buildings around 10 or 12 stories- keep the development lower to the ground and thereby keep it on a more human scale. That would make the gardens fit in with the buildings around them. I also question the busway, since it looks like a considerable amount of demolition will have to take place in order to build it to Western Road. I don't really like the idea of having the city pay to raze housing stock in order to make a private development more attractive.

Other than that, fantastic- especially the design concept of Tower 1.

Simpseatles · #5 Posted **Sep 26, 2011, 10:42 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wharn

I like the underlying concept, especially the idea of having street-level retail. I also like the nod to Progress Avenue in Scarberia, where there is another development somewhat like this one... which leads me to my reservations. Progress Avenue has a very detached and impersonal feel to it, since the residential towers are so high. I'd like to see the maximum height of your buildings around 10 or 12 stories- keep the development lower to the ground and thereby keep it on a more human scale. That would make the gardens fit in with the buildings around them. I also question the busway, since it looks like a considerable amount of demolition will have to take place in order to build it to Western Road. I don't really like the idea of having the city pay to raze housing stock in order to make a private development more attractive.

Other than that, fantastic- especially the design concept of Tower 1.

That's interesting, I was not aware that there was a Progress Ave in Scarborough around a similar concept! In my version, this street would mostly serve as a back way around the development, and be used to access the parking to support the node. There would definately be appealing gardens, sidewalks and crosswalks, just no retail. I thought that having stores located along the main streets, and the smaller inner pedestrian walkways would be sufficient. That's interesting about the heights of the buildings. I thought that between 9-26 stories would be a good fit, with setbacks and podiums, but that's just my opinion. I would definately want at least one standout tower if I made the rest dramatically shorter.

Regarding the busway, I made a rather crude map of where I envisioned it going. Sorry I didn't explain it better, I just wanted to include some kind of rapid transit system, without worrying too much about the rest of the line.

The purple is the BRT, black dots are the stations, the red area is the development in question, and yellow are future areas for development. After western road in the east, and Oxford to the west, I'm undecided about where the line would continue, hence the dotted lines. It may not be the most direct East-West route but I originally just created it to serve the redevelopment. Nonetheless, I don't see that too many houses would be effected.

haljackey · #6 Posted **Sep 27, 2011, 3:15 PM**

Cool. I've always envisioned turning the CP line into a busway.

If additional ROW was acquired, it could also be turned into a municipal expressway (not freeway standards) or ground light rail (GLR).

Simpseatles · #7 Posted **Oct 30, 2011, 8:37 PM**

Well, I whipped up a quick design of what I envision being built north of the courthouse on Queens Ave. It's a 10 story residential building, with ground floor retail. Oh, and it's just an elevation view this time, so no fancy perspective!

Simpseatles · #8 Posted **Dec 10, 2011, 10:08 PM**

My multi-use 25 story dream skyscraper that would be built at the corner of King and Clarence, where a parking lot currently is.

bolognium · #9 Posted **Dec 14, 2011, 9:27 AM**

Real cool sketches, dude. For you London Mall site, I'd like to see a little more interaction with the creek and parkland to the east. With your development and the Nuvo condos there'd be a pretty huge increase to residential density, so maybe a new park near the wetland or something could be possible. The existing trails in the area could also be expanded upon, and maybe a connection to the Thames Valley Parkway could be made along the CN corridor.

The King and Clarence tower looks great as well. I walk through that parking lot on almost a daily basis and if I had to put my money on which surface lot will be seeing development next, I'd definitely be placing bets on that lot. How long's it been since The Mews was demolished, like 10 years?

Simpseatles · #10 Posted **Dec 17, 2011, 4:48 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by bolognium

Real cool sketches, dude. For you London Mall site, I'd like to see a little more interaction with the creek and parkland to the east. With your development and the Nuvo condos there'd be a pretty huge increase to residential density, so maybe a new park near the wetland or something could be possible. The existing trails in the area could also be expanded upon, and maybe a connection to the Thames Valley Parkway could be made along the CN corridor.

The King and Clarence tower looks great as well. I walk through that parking lot on almost a daily basis and if I had to put my money on which surface lot will be seeing development next, I'd definitely be placing bets on that lot. How long's it been since The Mews was demolished, like 10 years?

Thanks for the input bolognium! It would definitely be a good idea to make the wooded area behind London Mall more accessible parkland. As for the King and Clarence tower, I have no idea about the Mews. I've heard of it, but I don't really know anything about when it was demolished.

Simpseatles · #11 Posted **Apr 13, 2012, 10:19 PM**

My latest fantasy rendering. An elevation drawing of a mixed-use 21 story building on Queens Ave. It would take up the whole parking lot between Queens and Carling.

http://s1141.photobucket.com/home/Simpseatles/index

Simpseatles · #12 Posted **Aug 23, 2012, 5:48 PM**

My latest fantasy rendering. A four story infill development for the parking lot on King street across from the market. Please excuse the effects, I got a little carried away! Do you think it has enough hipster appeal?

Simpseatles · #13 Posted **Oct 20, 2012, 11:56 PM**

I've decided to come up with my own plan for the redevelopment of the Forks of the Thames. In my vision, Dundas street would be pedestrian only across the river, and Queens Ave. would be a two-way street. Like the proposal from a while back, there is a new city hall. Here it is a 30 story skyscraper with public parking underground. It would become the tallest building in the city. To bring people closer to the riverfront there are now three alternating water jets, which would all look vastly different. A new north-south pedestrian bridge would also be built, a crucial link which is currently missing. There would be a couple other office buildings next to the new city hall, but the rest of the 15 buildings in the redevelopment would all be residential, with ground-level shops. To join all of these new buildings would be wide bike/pedestrian boulevards.

Anyways, that's the major stuff, the rest is pretty straightforward. I've listed the heights of the buildings on the map. I tried my best to get things to scale, and to be realistic but it's hand-drawn. When I get a chance, I look forward to doing some renderings of the buildings!

Whisper09 · #14 Posted **Oct 21, 2012, 5:55 AM**

I love the location of the new city hall. I think it would be perfect IMO. But everything else is a 'meh' for me. I would love new development, but I would rather get rid of dull-boring parking lots before a nice scenic path.

Simpseatles · #15 Posted **Oct 21, 2012, 3:23 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Whisper09

I love the location of the new city hall. I think it would be perfect IMO. But everything else is a 'meh' for me. I would love new development, but I would rather get rid of dull-boring parking lots before a nice scenic path.

Fair enough! I would also like to get rid of many downtown parking lots. My last few fantasy renderings have all focused on parking lots that are begging for development. This plan only relates to the redevelopment of the Forks, and not the whole of downtown. However I think that bringing people closer to the riverfront is an essential part of improving our core, and until we can make the forks the true focal point of our city, we are not finished. While I'm sure that this plan would draw opposition from those who like the quiet, natural setting of the Forks, I think we need offices, residential buildings, stores, and recreational opportunities in order to bring more life to the forks! Anayways, that's just my opinion, and this is only one possible solution.

manny_santos · #16 Posted **Oct 21, 2012, 7:42 PM**

Because of traffic levels in and out of downtown, I would not be in favour of making Queens Ave a two-way street and making Dundas (Riverside) a pedestrian-only bridge. My idea would be to complete the King Street extension across the river, make it one way eastbound, keep Queens Ave the way it is, and make Riverside pedestrian-only across the bridge. I have long been an advocate of Dundas being pedestrian-only west of Wellington Street.

Personally I would rather see City Hall move to one of the lots currently used as a parking lot, but not too far from where the drawing shows. I prefer keeping the area closest to the Forks of the Thames as a public, recreational area.

Simpseatles · #17 Posted **Oct 21, 2012, 8:32 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by manny_santos

Because of traffic levels in and out of downtown, I would not be in favour of making Queens Ave a two-way street and making Dundas (Riverside) a pedestrian-only bridge. My idea would be to complete the King Street extension across the river, make it one way eastbound, keep Queens Ave the way it is, and make Riverside pedestrian-only across the bridge. I have long been an advocate of Dundas being pedestrian-only west of Wellington Street.
.

That's interesting. I thought about extending King across the river, but there is already a beautiful pedestrian bridge where the new bridge would go. I'm also unsure about how it would connect on the other side of the river, but that's definately something worth considering if the Dundas bridge goes pedestrian-only.

While I realize my plan isn't for everyone, could we all agree that a north-south pedestrian bridge is something that we could actually use? I think the Forks should be framed by 3 pedestrian bridges to let people easily navigate around the area. The new bridge could have a spectacular, modern design like Calatrava's Peace Bridge in Calgary:

http://ianharding.com/2012/03/24/cal...grand-opening/

As for the new city hall, I envision it looking something like this:

http://www.chicagoarchitecture.info/...cker-Drive.php

and/or this:

http://blogs.calgaryherald.com/2012/...hat-you-think/

manny_santos · #18 Posted **Oct 21, 2012, 10:08 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Simpseatles

That's interesting. I thought about extending King across the river, but there is already a beautiful pedestrian bridge where the new bridge would go. I'm also unsure about how it would connect on the other side of the river, but that's definately something worth considering if the Dundas bridge goes pedestrian-only.

There would be room for both bridges for King Street - the existing pedestrian bridge is located far enough south that an additional bridge could be built to the north. Such a bridge would funnel eastbound traffic off Riverside Drive onto King Street.

MolsonExport · #19 Posted **Oct 22, 2012, 4:09 PM**

whoops, wrong thread.

Whisper09 · #20 Posted **Oct 26, 2012, 10:57 AM**

I'm kind of thinking changing King and Riverside into a way changing road. I don't know how to explain it better than to show you a picture of what I mean

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...Lions_Gate.jpg

So during rush hour in the morning, King and Riverside flow into downtown, and then when rush hour around 430 comes, all of the traffic moves out. I have no idea how the city would execute the rest of the part (like the lights at Wharncliffe) but I'm sure there's a way.