Since you asked…
There is.. one.
This design was created showing two of three phases of development between Forestdale and the Maley Drive Extension. The third phase nearest the Maley Drive Extension will be a mixed light industry and commercial with mixed housing. That third phase is not included in this plan though there are connectors.
The plan incorporates residential homes, pocket community housing, seniors living complex with community health and healing center, small local business commercial market space, schools and learning centers as community hubs, sports and fitness center, community greenhouse food production, walkable and bikable streets, plenty of community accessible greenspace, and arts and activity parkettes for kids and family.
It maintains the Nickeldale Forest walking / hiking / biking Trail and ecological buffer, and meanders Montrose Blvd, to limit traffic to mainly local traffic.
It also has the New Sudbury Bioregional Sustainability Center that provides local recycling/ re-use, and materials re-circulation, a community library of things and tools, cooperative community space, a community workshop, and research facilities for community entrepreneurship.
If you would like to explore this design click on the Explorable Nickeldale Community design ~ The Alternative Plan link, and use your pointer to hover over the areas you are wondering about. The various features are identified when you settle over an area where the pointer arrow has changed to hand.
An example of the pocket community housing design
Cute and friendly small and affordable housing design, with common outdoor areas to encourage strong community cohesion.
When will Sudbury ‘get a quality neighbourhood that everybody will enjoy’.
This is a design that integrates liveability features, green-spaces, and amenities that bring benefit and resilience to the community.
This is community design any developers would be proud to showcase. Design is the key to our future. Build it right, make it liveable, and integrate beneficial features.
And remember, all the money the City collects in taxes and development fees, is your money, so what do you want that money to do. What kind of communities do you want to see develop around you?
Have a say, and let’s make Sudbury the best it can be.
I am concerned about the commercial space detailed in this alternative plan. I love the idea of more housing – semis, seniors, multi-family, singles, lowrise apartments I love it all. But why would we need commercial space when Lasalle and Barrydowne are less than 2 km for anyone that lives in the areas bordering Notre Dame, Maley, Barrydowne, Lasalle?
Hi Kalen, in this plan there is no commercial development other than the currently approved small C zone at the south-east corner of Montrose/Woodbine, and what we’ve added is spoken to below. The current plan by Dalron, is not appropriate, because it does not integrate existing green space and trail which were promised and for other reasons like unsafe connections to existing residential streets.
But we are not against the fluid process of good design evolving communities in Sudbury, but we need every development to be appropriate, safe and integral.
This particular development is an alternative envisioning of a community done by the community, not by a developer. This is to help envision the alternative to what the developer is planning to build. There is only one small local community business mall tucked into the top west corner (connected on the back lot with the Community entrepreneurship Center). The commercial space is local business only, and is restricted to services like small local boutiques, health food store, hairstylists, lawyers offices and, a local resto-cafe, pet grooming business, and servcies that benefit the surrounding community, it’s not commercial like a commercial main drag with Tim Horton’s, commercial strip mall, and big brand/box stores.
This alternative plan is for the community benefit of some local amenities, and provides places where local artisan and crafts people can present and sell their work. We think that some small entrepreneurial ideas should be integrated into the fabric of new communities. Say you wanted to start a local marketplace that sells package-less, supplies, and food staples, like the West Ends’s wonderful small entrepreneurial business called the Nickel Refillery. That’s the kind of business that builds community and that’s the kind of commercial business that could find a home in our alternative envisioning of ‘a community everyone would love’. Walkable streets, a senior Independent living Center, a holistic health and healing spa, a learning academy, and entrepreneurial center, a small community athletics center, and all sorts of cool places for the community to walk or bike to. This is the most ideal community we could envision for the site.
We got green space, trails, and even a bioregional sustainability center with a makerspace, and a library of things, walpini greenhouses, a food forest, and so much more. Think community, like, community opportunity so the youth of the neighborhood feel like there things to do, places to find apprenticeships, and places that offer the experience of doing cool things. We are trying to find the ideal. We got plenty of examples of the same old subdivisions that have nothing but houses and streets, and no green space, no liveability, no community charm or character and no opportunity.
Kalen, What more would you love to see in and around your community? Let us know. You can help us envision the community too.
When we envision something beyond the ordinary, a world of possibilities opens up. We will temper that creativity opportunity with the principle of what serves the immediate community with the most benefit, and what is appropriate, safe, and integral.
Our community design is based on what we call ‘life-affirming’ design principles. It doesn’t dull us out and make us unhappy, and unhealthy, it is designed to uplift our spirits, and helps us feel connected, supported and encouraged to be healthy, and to live life well. That’s what real community can do. But we don’t know much of that here yet, because the way our developers think is just not there yet, but that’s what we want to do. We want to bring Sudbury into a new era of socio-ecological design, with the integration of what is better, and what it possible.
As for the zoning definitions, this document has all the zoning by-laws for Greater Sudbury. There you can see the restrictions on various commercial zones.
My concern with the commercial space that the alternative plan references and the your response of “The commercial space is local business only, and is restricted to services like small local boutiques, health food store, hairstylists, lawyers offices and, a local resto-cafe, pet grooming business, and servcies that benefit the surrounding community” is that most of these commercial business which you describe already exist on Lasalle – most between Notre Dame and Barrydowne. With small local boutiques being “R little Secret”, “Lindgrens”, “House of Bras”, “Kids Closet”, “Sew Local” to name a few. Health food stores being “Durham Natural foods” and “Smith’s” and sadly the recently closed “Be Greater Organic”. Hair Stylist on Lasalle we have “Hair Creation+”,
“Ginger Snap Salon”, “The Barber Shop” and “Tisha’s Place”. Lawyers Office – I can’t think of any off the top of my head but there are other professional business like accountants, bookkeepers, physiotherapists, foot doctors, dentist, optometrist. And a local resto-cafe there are many locally owned restaurants among the chains on Lasalle. Again my dislike of the alternative plan is commercial space that appears to duplicate what’s already on Lasalle. I too would love to have a Nickel District Refillery location opened in New Sudbury but I do not think the solution is to build new commercial space less than 2 KM from Lasalle. Why do New Sudburians not like Lasalle? Because it’s noisy, it’s busy, it’s not walkable and it’s not bikeable. If those are our reasons for wanting a new commercial space for New Subury then I suggest we focus on fixing and improving the enjoy-ability of Lasalle. Many cities in North America have changed and improved “Stroads” like Lasalle and have turned them back into enjoyable streets.
My biggest concern is any connection of Montrose to Maley Drive. I do not want to see that to happen. I did some rough calculations with google maps and these are my rough notes:
1272-1278 Old Hwy 69 to East Side Marios – Via Notre Dame to Lasalle – 4 minutes
1272-1278 Old Hwy 69 to Maley Drive (approx. due north of Montrose) 3 minutes, plus Top of Montrose to East Side Marios – 2 minutes totalling 6 minutes. This estimate excludes the distance between Maley and woodbine at this time. But it’s reasonable to assume that this additional distance from Maley to woodbine would be at least 2 minute. .: the total time if Maley is connected to Montrose to get from 1272-1278 Oldway 69 to East Side Marios would be AT Least 8 minutes. This connection would .: not “save any time”, it would make a residential area more congested with vehicles that do not live in the area, I do not see any benefit to the residents that live in or around this area.
Coming from the easterly direction I made the following calculations on travel time.
Currently from Timberwolf Golf Club to East Side Marios the drive is 7 minutes (approx. 4.5km)
With an extension from Montrose to Maley, the estimate drive time would be:
Timberwolf Golf Club to approximately due North of Montrose – 2 minutes plus Top of Montrose to East Side Marios – 2 minutes plus it’s reasonable to assume that this additional distance from Maley to woodbine would be at least 2 minute. Totalling 6 minutes. Although there may be a potential time savings in drive time I do not think that 1 minute of potentially saved travel time will make a significant difference in the quality of life for travellers driving easterly on Maley. Whereas the negative impact on residents that live along Montrose would be much more significant in terms of increased noise, traffic and safety in their neighbourhood.
Hi Kalen,
Your points are well taken.. But your issue is with the direct connection of Montrose to Maley, not with the alternative envisioning of a community that was done primarily to show what a community design in the Southern part of the site would look like if an ecological corridor and connector trail was left intact.
We created this alternative model to show that issue amended and ameliorated, because that is the main issue we have with this current re-draft. We stand united on the inappropriate complete deletion of an ecological corridor of re-greened upland ecology that contains our long stewarded multi-use, family friendly trail that connects Montrose to the Magnolia Blvd – New Sudbury Historical Trial trailhead.
The rest of the alternative plan is a first draft extra ideal envisioning of what the North plan could look like. And let me tell you, I think I will change it up still quite a bit, because it can be done even better, and even more ideal and appropriate. I will show that at some point soon. Stay tuned to that if you like this kind of stuff.. But again to your point..
The fact that I put in one small local commercial business mall, and gave examples of what could be, is besides the point, and actually besides your point too, because those examples are not actual, and not especially great examples.
So forget about the examples of what I said could be there. Because I shouldn’t discriminate but ideally this local business center was for local home grown entrepreneurs only, a business cooperative space, and a ‘mall’ that they could have as showcase space frontage if needed.. Notice that it back-to-backs with the local Entrepreneurship Center, that also has cooperative space for the incubation of local entrepreneurs and their ideas, and there is nothing like it anywheres in Northern Ontario. Let alone in Sudbury. We have some incubators, and virtual business spaces, but let’s take NORCAT for example, it’s great, but it’s not for your small local entrepreneur with a community level idea, it’s for something a bit more involved than that. And tell me honestly, don’t you think that would be great.This is something I am very keen on, because I want community Youth to have more opportunities and more engagement in community innovation and development. And this Center we have in this alternative plan would be focused on incubating local Youth entrepreneurs. What do you think of that?
And yeah, the Lasalle Corridor Improvement Public Consultation got a lot of ideas flowing about how Lasalle could be made more walkable and more liveable and that is great, but you see the problems that arise when you don’t get design right, right from the start.. See the problems and the lack that is there in terms of what that design could have been, had we had a better plan in the first place. Who wants to walk down lasalle? Is it is liveable? Is it enjoyable? Not really.
Can it be improved? Yes it can, but you get my point?
So let’s forget about the commercial area for a moment and let’s go on to the friction of the day, which is, the potential of and inevitability of cut-through traffic from Maley Drive Extension, down Montrose, through a residential neighborhood, causing existing community concerns and raising the issue of safety.
You see, we are on the same page, and standing up for the same thing. We are looking at traffic concerns, and concerns about the safety of the existing neighborhood connections to Maley.
And what is transportation thinking this is going to be, seeing as it looks like a connection from a divided highway to a designated residential roadway (which is not allowed by regulation) and Montrose is not truly a designated Arterial Roadway, and your issue is with all this. Isn’t it?
I appreciate the time you have taken to work out numbers to back your points and make your case, but I honestly think it’s not meant for the comments on this page.
It is more meant for an objection to the potential issue of Montrose connecting to Maley directly, and I referenced that point in many places around the site in various ways, each of which points to another facet of what that means for the community and why. As well, there is the open question that deals with the city that we need questions answered. Those question are as follows:
What kind of transportation easement agreements for Montrose to Maley are there?
What does a meandering Montrose as finally agreed to by Council truly mean?
Does a 50m variance in the road satisfy the definition and the mandate for a meandering as set as direction to City Staff, by Council?
What does David Shelsted, Director, Roads and Transportation Services, GCS, think about the Montrose North Connection? And what has he recommended on the file?
When were these agreements and recommendations made?
What schedules where applied to the file, and how was the Montrose North / South project put on the books? Was it classified as a Municipal capital project?
What do the Montrose North / South projects represent in the new Transportation Masterplan?
And what did the City tell Dalron Construction about capital cost sharing as it pertains to a project that would (in many other cases) essentially be for a developer to take on in their own development budget, without City taxpayer dollars?
What is the Environmental Assessment (EA) requirements on the project? What is the project classified as? And what are the full EA report requirements for that classification?
And not lastly, but very importantly, where is the full Traffic Impact Study (TIS) for this entire project, as Council directed for? There is TDA (Traffic Demand software analysis) but that is but one small part of a proper TIS.
And note, if this is scheduled as a GCS capital project on the City’s books, as it may be, then we have plenty of other questions that arise from that.
Let me tell you Kalen, what you are doing is really great, and seeing as you are obviously a very keen person, and one who is focused and looking for answers, would you be able to help us find the answers to these and other questions that you may articulate better, that arise from the way this development is being handled by the City?
This is good. I like that you’ve kept the trails in between the developments. You’ve connected the community, and given people a nice connector path, and access to nature. Your development ideas north of the hydro corridor are interesting. Should be considered by City and Developer. Nice looking plan.
Thanks. It requires some changes to the zoning, for the integrated school, and community health and fitness centers, and the Bioregional Sustainability Center too, but these kinds of features add so much to the community, making it truly liveable and much more desirable.
It might even satisfy the Ronald Arnold 2015 promises and quote “Dalron president Ron Arnold said that while developers are required to set aside at least five per cent of residential land for parks, they opted to set aside 20 per cent instead, for Villages of Montrose.”
“The development will include walking trails, ponds and several parks.”
“Our goal is to get a quality neighbourhood that everybody will enjoy,” he said.”
Sounds too good for Sudbury.
Well, it is a sad statement to say so Brian, but yeah, we need better designed subdivisions. We have all these examples from around the world, of world class developments that take it so much further. Why should Sudbury also not open up to that possibility. This is a statement on the state of Sudbury’s current Planning Division (and Official Plan ) perspective. If it’s too good for Sudbury, it just means that Sudbury hasn’t yet opened up to the possibility that things can be done a lot better. So let’s discuss what better really can be. And let’s get the developers to see that, and step up to the plate, and develop something that other communities will look and see and say ‘Now that’s great’ we should develop something like that here too’.
This is way better than what Dalron has before Council now. If they have to develop this site, this is the plan they should go with. Nice work.
Hi Ron. Absolutely better, just for the fact that it integrates the community activated greenspace that we love to walk all year long. But every plan has areas to improve and there things that even this alternative subdi-vision could integrate. The point being, that what’s on the table in front of Council now, is no where near ideal. It has so much to change and improve that Council should give it back to the developer and ask for the liveability features to be drafted in, and ask for the integration of the greenspace, and ask for the design to be upgraded to respect the health and safety concerns of the existing surrounding communities, and take a stand and make the developers understand that Sudbury can evolve it’s design future. But that starts right away, with projects like this.
[…] Is there an alternative Community Design? […]