2501 Richmond | 105m | 30s | Minto
- Thread starter MichaelS
- Start date
Chinese_T
Active Member
The new plan isn't bad by any means but I have a few concerns.
It seems they've put a parkade entrance here where there should be a larger gateway into the park.
The angled parking across from Cascade will make the street feel more like a parking lot with cars having to back up out of the spaces.
Is there any mixed use at all? The concept plans show large landscaping features in front of most of the buildings except the one fronting Richmond Road.
These undefined "greenspaces" in particular seem a bit unclear. The shapes are pretty reminiscent of developments in the suburbs with huge courtyard parking lots...
Overall this sort of feels more like a reincarnation of the 60s "Tower in the Park" concept than anything else; good in terms of added density but not adding anything new or meaningful to the community as a whole.
Expect deVille 2.0 with the three 50m towers.
It seems they've put a parkade entrance here where there should be a larger gateway into the park.
The angled parking across from Cascade will make the street feel more like a parking lot with cars having to back up out of the spaces.
Is there any mixed use at all? The concept plans show large landscaping features in front of most of the buildings except the one fronting Richmond Road.
These undefined "greenspaces" in particular seem a bit unclear. The shapes are pretty reminiscent of developments in the suburbs with huge courtyard parking lots...
Overall this sort of feels more like a reincarnation of the 60s "Tower in the Park" concept than anything else; good in terms of added density but not adding anything new or meaningful to the community as a whole.
Expect deVille 2.0 with the three 50m towers.
Attachments
Last edited:
maestro
Senior Member
Those with the surface parking are atrocious. They are much worse than a modernist tower in a park community with the park part being green space. All that asphalt adds to the heat effect and requires storm water management. LOL , Where do the children play?
Underground parking is 100 times more expensive so this does make things more affordable and these development must have one level of underground parking. There are plenty of examples of 6 storey mid rises with 100% surface parking and those I question if they are any denser than town houses.
Underground parking is 100 times more expensive so this does make things more affordable and these development must have one level of underground parking. There are plenty of examples of 6 storey mid rises with 100% surface parking and those I question if they are any denser than town houses.
adamyyc
Active Member
I think the new layout will incorporate better into the surrounding area than the previous "master plan" layout, which I think would have felt kind of closed off/gated to those who don't live in the community. The roadway and pathway network in the previous iteration was inefficient, and a larger consolidated park will provide a better amenity for the surrounding community than a bunch of parkettes.
Yes, the loss of density is a shame, but I still think this is a reasonable density boost for a semi-constrained site.
Yes, the loss of density is a shame, but I still think this is a reasonable density boost for a semi-constrained site.