Option 1 - Modified 2013 Concept
• Integrates community centre with former high school
• Single detached residential north of OTHS and parking garage
• Some townhouse development along Reynolds Street
• New east-west street that would connect Allan Street to Reynolds Street
• 33 single-detached lots
• 37 townhouse lots
• Density 23.4 units per hectare (uph)
• Park: 0.32 ha (.78 acres)
Ron Buist commented
As a graduate of OTHS ('60)and both my children who also graduated in the 80's and 90's respectively . I am very interested is seeing the existing structure remain in tact and with some identification being added as to its history. The one point of contention is the use of open asbestos used initially in the structure for insulation purposes. Will this asbestos all be or has it all been removed? Plan #1 seems to best serve the basic premise of my concerns and interest. Ron Buist
My comments are valid for all three options.
I agree wholeheartedly with the comment by anonymous May 28, 2017 21:27 under comments for option 2 “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 would suggest that replacing all the townhomes and detached dwellings North and South of the existing parking garage with one large park configured for multiple outdoor uses.
Although I would prefer all the land be redeveloped only as a park/community centre, if new residential space must be included on this site doing it with one low/midrise rise condo in the footprint of only the proposed 4/5 detached dwellings South of the existing parking garage is an option. That way the land is used much more effectively. This way the town can increase population density and also meet the needs of a diverse number of age groups. Such a condo should be attractive for working people that need access to GO trains or the elderly to stay in the neighborhood they are familiar with. All with excellent access to the town’s newly planned facilities.
Option 1 describe a great solution of linking the community centre with the existing OT high school, close to the parking garage and the park. This configuration is effective and compact, leaving more park space and will also allow the town to effectively address their parameters for conserving the heritage aspects of the OTHS as well as protecting the Chimney Swift colony residing on the site.
I like the idea of integrating the former high school with the community center.
More townhouses is preferable to more detached housing; higher density is more environmentally responsible, and allows for a demographically diverse neighbourhood, as people age and give up their larger detached homes. We need housing on this site to generate property tax revenue.
Traffic flow would be better with this option.
The green space is more than adequate in size; St. George's Square is nearby, and doesn't ever appear to be very busy.
As the parking garage is structurally sound, it would add too much to the cost to tear it down and create more parking.
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?
Ed Rieckelman commented
This plan seems to be the most appropriate for the neighbourhood and fits best with town objectives. It also delineates housing from park and recreational lands.
Wyndham Manor is a beautiful home to many seniors. This plan preserves the most green space for them and less traffic the town homes would bring. Also, if they are able, the community centre is the closest accessiblilty for them.
Disappointed to see so many townhomes in all of the options...multi level townhomes do not support keeping the older, long term Oakville residents in the neighbourhood....can we not include 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....
This plan is a good choice. Although comments are showing to eliminate housing, there is a need to allow others to live in the community via townhouse offerings. Those who would like to live in the area don't have a lot to choose from in terms of townhouse options.
Commuting is close enough to access the GO train. More diversification is needed to make the city even greater and that includes options for people to choose from in prime areas! The parking garage is needed, as so many people park along residential streets, even when they are heading downtown, they use side streets. The park and open space is large enough to use effectively. Accessibility is important for all!
An additional thought to eliminating the parking garage - can underground parking be included with the community centre? I know cost is being kept in mind but the advantages of having increased space for park, housing, etc. increases quality of community.
Eliminate the parking garage. Without the 24 hour security of the old hospital, the garage will become not only an eyesore but a safety risk to nearby residents. Night lighting would not be appropriate in a residential site. Increase greenspace and reduce number of residences. Use the Old school as a health hub to promote healthy lifestyles.
Please eliminate the parking garage - it's an eyesore and costly to maintain. What resident wants to live next to it? Agree with Frank about the new arrangement of green space, housing and parking.
This is the best option by far. The townhomes should be as close as possible to the Go Station to make the development as friendly as possible for commuters. These other comments pre-suppose the townhomes will be ugly and hurt the look of the neighbourhood, whereas recent developments in the Dorval - Lakeshore area have been quite aesthetically pleasing.
of course the residents in this area will dislike this option; it's almost as if the choices were built to make you prefer option 2 only. to improve option 1 and make it a better and true alternative, extend the park from reynolds to allan by reducing/removing the townhouses 'in the middle'.
The idea of integrating Oakville Trafalgar High School a historic site, blends better with the new Community Center.
My husband recently moved into Wyndham Manor, I would hate to see the facility surrounded by townhomes, very little activity. YES, some of the residents enjoy looking out their window, go for a short supervised walk and some people watching is just the diversion they need. So please keep more parkland, after all this is what Oakville was, how many more townhouses and condos do we want.
My comments are applicable to all the options. First, eliminate the parking garage, unless it is to be free. Eliminate the housing and replace with park. Oakville is already far too densely occupied--we do not want more gridlock. I concur with much of Frank's comments.
Jeff Mahannah commented
This plan works fairly well but needs some tweaking. 1 Ensure there is a lane way behind the Reynolds St townhouses- without it, there will be too many new driveways on Reynolds. 2 Switch the Townhouses on the new east-west street to Detached. Also, it would be great to see Galt continued between Reynolds and Allan as a pedestrian/cycling path
LikeShow more reactions ·
Remove the parking garage. Without the hospital, there is a much lower demand for parking in the residential area.
Extend the park all the way across From Reynolds to Allan - this will help bring theses neighborhoods together.
Have a dedicated section of the park to be a community garden associated with the community centre. It can be run and paid for by the community to grow food that can be given to the local food bank.
Replace the townhouses facing north on the new public street with detached homes.
Replace the detached homes south of Galt with parking for the community centre.
Why cram so many homes/town homes on this property??? IT SHOULD BE ALL PUBLIC SPACE. Let's really make Oakville a place that other communities aspire to be like.