Option 2 - Westerly Community Centre
• Park and Community Center is focused on Reynolds Street, while drop-off and parking garage access is provided from the Lawson Street intersection
• Single detached residential north of OTHS and parking garage
• Townhouses, served by a private lane, are proposed east of the former high school (OTHS), south of the parking garage
• Single detached lots fronting Allan
• 33 single-detached lots
• 19 townhouse lots
• Density: 21.5 units per hectare (uph)
• Park: 0.56 ha (1.39 acres)
-
Anonymous commented
I like this option the best. The only changes I suggest are to: (1) Move the park to front Allan instead of Reynolds - only because Allan has much less traffic so it would be a little safer and (2) Add an additional town-home on the west side and remove the detached house at the end of the road to give those units direct access to Allan instead of having to drive by the drop off area of the community center (less congestion)
-
Anonymous commented
I live on Allan street and am in support of option 2 due to low density.
-
Anonymous commented
I like this option the best: lowest density, largest park and best arrangement of buildings. How is the old OT High School going to be used? And what does an "Urban Square" look like? Will it be grassy? Places for lounging and sitting in the sun? Flower beds? That would be nice.
-
Anonymous commented
My preferred option. But I would also be OK with replacing townhouses with a three story condo building which would 1) allow more people in the neighbourhood to age in place 2) would be more in keeping with surrounding area/buildings 3) would recognize a need for increased density.
-
Anonymous commented
My comment is valid for all three options for sadly, I don’t think we’re achieving anything spectacular with that space. All these bits and pieces feel disunited and seem to have been thrown like dice on a board game to please all the stakeholders. Everything look disconnected with the paths and green space, an afterthought.
The park space proposed is puny to the point of being ridiculous. Surely the town doesn’t need more tax dollars from more housing? Why do we need to build more, and there?
We have an opportunity to create a long lasting vision with this space, for generations to come. Rarely do we come across an opportunity to create a true community space, in the middle of a built-up town. Let’s do this right.
I can think of a dozen space usages within an urban park for all to enjoy. Think Central Park or Bryant Park in New York. Closer to home, Mount Royal in Montreal, Stanley Park in Vancouver or High Park in Toronto. What these parks share in common is that they are a destination, they serve multi-purposes for all generation throughout the year, people just go there to hang out and they’re the pride of their city. Imagine Oakville, the most livable town, with an amazing, functional urban park that’s bigger than 0.78/1.39/1.0 acres. Imagine that! What do you want to see in an urban park for Oakville?
-
Anonymous commented
Option 2 appears to keep the most green space. Perhaps low-rise apartments instead of town houses.
-
Anonymous commented
Would like to see some apartment style condos with one floor living
-
Anonymous commented
Most interior driveways provides best traffic flow
-
Greg Jaroszynski commented
Westerly Community Centre is the ideal one because it has the largest space for the Park area That's what Oakville needs more park space.
-
Anonymous commented
Disappointed to see so many townhomes in all of the options...multi level townhomes do not support keeping the elderly, long term Oakville residents in the neighbourhood....can we not do some "California bungalows" to keep our neighbourhoods age diverse - with a floorplan all on one level and small garden? Plus, I think the narrow square footage front of all townhomes is not appropriate for the area....
-
Amy Cawse commented
Option two is the best option. Designing a city shouldn't only be based on selecting the highest revenue option. We need planners who have a long term vision. We pay high enough taxes therefore should be able to enjoy green space, some community amenities and a less congested neighborhood.
-
Tammy commented
I like this layout best. Lower density housing of all.
-
Anonymous commented
I prefer this option but would still like to see more greenspace. I would love this development to serve retirees who want to remain in the core. The adjacent long term care, community center and planned health hub could provide a wonderful environment for our older citizens to age in place.
-
Beth commented
I like option # 2 the most because it has lower density and the park is larger. I also hope that any plans for the community centre include a pool, preferably a "warm" pool, since QEP and Glen Abbey pools have gotten very crowded.
-
Anonymous commented
This design is more in keeping with the hospital site layout that everyone is used to, in efefct where most traffic flows on Reynolds which is a main road.Congestion will be an issue due to the community centre so housing density should be kept to a minimum.
One concern is the description "open space or parking" behind WyndhamManor. This area was always supposed to be a healing garden,and although it was never completed it should remain green space. The area could do with more landscaped open park spaces -not car parks!
-
Geoff commented
Worst option by far. It generates the least money for the town and does nothing but try to make current rich residents of Old Oakville happy. Another giant park five blocks from Post Park? When is enough enough for the super rich?
-
Rory commented
Without a doubt the best option. I still think that there should be more green space, finding it hard to believe that out of all this land we can only squeeze a mere 0.56ha of green space. The layout is not optimal, there should be more green space along MacDonald. However, it far surpasses option 1 and 3 which are unworkable, due to congestion alone. This option has a good mix of housing options, single family detached lots for the up and coming young generation and townhouses for others interested in downsizing. There is no room here for condo styled low/medium rise structures, the infrastructure cannot handle the increase in density and any decision should be made taking this into consideration. Along with the fact that residents of SE Oakville have gone for so long without any facilities such as these to speak of, why should we have to sacrifice density in return for these services?
-
Louise Perrin commented
This is absolutely the best option! The park size is the biggest of the 3 options and for an area, lacking in park space, this is an improvement. As well, I prefer more single detached houses. As a resident of Allan St., I'm concerned about the volume of traffic, so this option appears to be the most viable..
-
Melissa Doherty commented
This is my favourite. I would suggest that the townhouse lane continue through to Allan as there is much research that suggests dead ended streets
are more prone to crime, and makes access for emergency vehicles more difficult. If you are looking for more density, the proposal could handle townhouses backing onto the proposed park at corner or Reynolds and MacDonald. -
Anonymous commented
Best option of the 3.