News   Apr 03, 2020
 4.8K     1 
News   Apr 02, 2020
 6.6K     3 
News   Apr 02, 2020
 3.8K     0 

General Construction Updates

I thought the drive thru entrance and exit were both still on 17th, but allowing for a much longer queue of cars than before, at the expense of some parking.

I'll have to look back through the thread and confirm.
 
mcd5.png
 
I am trying to think of a precedent from Toronto, Montreal or Vancouver where a new drive thru was allowed on their most popular walkable main street. Less than 25% of the site is for the use, everything else is car capacity and 24/7 vehicle idling queuing space in our densest and most walkable neighbourhood. I recall the planning department recommended against this one and Council overruled?

I mean they even added those tactile strips and a sweeping sloped apron that takes up over half the sidewalk area. The access road off of 17th Ave is 7.2m wide, 3.6m per lane. That's wider than the travel lanes on 17th. Nothing says walkable main streets like sweeping corners to encourage high speed turns and cushy wide vehicle and parking lanes.

Shiny and new fades after a year or two, garbage land use planning will remain for decades. I really like McDonalds but this is a terrible outcome.
 
I am trying to think of a precedent from Toronto, Montreal or Vancouver where a new drive thru was allowed on their most popular walkable main street.

Surprised this one got approved in this format.

The main thing is the drive through isn't new.

The franchisee said they wouldn't rebuild if not allowed to have a drive through, and they just keep the even worse current one for the foreseeable future.
 
I am trying to think of a precedent from Toronto, Montreal or Vancouver where a new drive thru was allowed on their most popular walkable main street. Less than 25% of the site is for the use, everything else is car capacity and 24/7 vehicle idling queuing space in our densest and most walkable neighbourhood. I recall the planning department recommended against this one and Council overruled?
A big step backward and a fail on the part of the city. It shows the city still kowtows to the car crowd, as this should never have been allowed.
 
The franchisee said they wouldn't rebuild if not allowed to have a drive through, and they just keep the even worse current one for the foreseeable future.
They probably would have kept it for some time, but not near as long as it will now that they have a new building. The old building was falling apart and might have lasted another 10 years before the franchisee finally packed it in.
 
They probably would have kept it for some time, but not near as long as it will now that they have a new building. The old building was falling apart and might have lasted another 10 years before the franchisee finally packed it in.
they could have renovated in place. No change in footprint, no permits needed.
 
Just to reinforce the stereotype - I just passed one city worker hand digging a small hole in a sidewalk opening while three others stood around the hole observing. 😄
 

Back
Top