[AlvinofDiaspar]

44 North:

To be honest though, eyeballing the site in question I think it is only 1/6 the size of Regent Park North - and given the site will be subdivided into two even smaller blocks, the development in question hardly comparable to the planning mistakes of the 50s/60s.

AoD

 

[Big Daddy]

How is it that people can support a proposal which seems to go against most common knowledge of both urban decay, urban renewal failures, and intelligent planning?

To the supporters: So a total of 433 stories spread over six buildings is okay? But how would you feel about an alternative scenario of twenty 20-storey buildings? All built at the same time, all by the same designers. Doesn't sound so great, does it? Just picturing that can remind people of Soviet microdistricts (blocks), the failures of mid-20C urban renewal efforts, the ghettos they created, the poor integration with the city, and the demolition of these slums across the US, Great Britain, and even in places like Regent Park.

It does seem like a slippery slope argument to say these will end up as slums. But the reality is that even in their "prime" location the buildings are poorly integrated, are next to a crumbling elevated highway, and more than likely will be designed to exclude families. It's a ghetto in the making.

On top of this all, it's a mammoth megaproject and is too insanely large for Toronto. It's bound to cost the city more than any property taxes it will bring in, and it's bound to fail.

That's got to be the single most negative, over the top, run for the hills, the sky is falling, comment I have ever read on UT. If someone were to ask me where in Canada I would build a project of this scale I would say;

Downtown in a large progressive city with verve and resolve, (Toronto)
Close to a major transportation centre (Union Station)
Close to a major highway (Gardiner)
Within a region of similar office and condo developments

I think downtown Toronto is ideal for this type and scale of development and hope it is approved with little change.

 

[bleu]

I am local resident and I like the project. My question is, how those thousands of new people are going to move around ? The traffic is horrible as it is, without even the new buildings finished and occupied.

walk to Union or King station and take the subway/streetcar, like the rest of downtown residents?
Does anyone honestly think downtown Toronto has too many people and is too crowded?

I live downtown core, and I walk to everywhere 90% of the time, and take subway/streetcar the rest time when I need to go a bit further.

 

[bleu]

How is it that people can support a proposal which seems to go against most common knowledge of both urban decay, urban renewal failures, and intelligent planning?

To the supporters: So a total of 433 stories spread over six buildings is okay? But how would you feel about an alternative scenario of twenty 20-storey buildings? All built at the same time, all by the same designers. Doesn't sound so great, does it? Just picturing that can remind people of Soviet microdistricts (blocks), the failures of mid-20C urban renewal efforts, the ghettos they created, the poor integration with the city, and the demolition of these slums across the US, Great Britain, and even in places like Regent Park.

It does seem like a slippery slope argument to say these will end up as slums. But the reality is that even in their "prime" location the buildings are poorly integrated, are next to a crumbling elevated highway, and more than likely will be designed to exclude families. It's a ghetto in the making.

On top of this all, it's a mammoth megaproject and is too insanely large for Toronto. It's bound to cost the city more than any property taxes it will bring in, and it's bound to fail.

Geez, since when 6 highrise buildings at one site for the downtown of a large city becomes a problem? Have you been to a real big city at all?

How exactly are these building turning into a ghetto, when they are steps away from the financial district, Union station, with retails and so close to St Lawrence Market area, not to say Lake Ontario? Turning into ghettos essentially means people with decent jobs and income won't want to live them, and given what information is available, I have trouble understanding why these towers will be so unattractive that only the poor will be willing to live there.

If you are so scared of major projects like this which has the potential to revive a dead corner and bring so much positive change to Toronto, maybe you should move to somewhere a little less populated?

 

[44 North]

I'm sorry if my post was grossly over the top, and quite scatterbrained.

But with regards to AoD's reply, I don't think surface area makes much of a difference. It's still the same amount of housing as twenty 20-storey buildings. Whether it's spread over several blocks, or one - the comparisons to past failed 50's/60's 'urban renewal' tower blocks is apt.

And bleu, this is is 'too large' for the fact that TO has a significant amount of development all over the city. Why just a few blocks away and along the waterfront we're to have several tens of thousands. Six highrises skyscrapers in one tiny pocket is totally putting the horse before the cart. Especially with housing sales falling in TO.

The "dead corner" can be revived...I'm not against large projects. Just mammoth Dubai-esque ones in lowly Toronto with its 2.6M people, low density, and 2.5 subway lines. We're not Manhattan or Hong Kong, and if you look at all the single family detached homes with garages in our downtown - it's apparent we never will be. Ever. Tossing up six skyscrapers in a small block just muddles the reality of what TO really is.

 

[RiverCity1]

I'm with Big Daddy. This is exactly what should go here at this location. And it's not like its going to be built instantly lol.

The world is pretty messed up and people live in awful places...and they want to come HERE. Yes, we aren't NYC or Hong Kong or, thankfully, Dubai. We are Toronto.

 

[Xray_Crystal_Junkie]

But with regards to AoD's reply, I don't think surface area makes much of a difference. It's still the same amount of housing as twenty 20-storey buildings. Whether it's spread over several blocks, or one - the comparisons to past failed 50's/60's 'urban renewal' tower blocks is apt.

Your entire argument is nonsensical. The underlying principle in your argument is that a large amount of housing, no matter how it is constructed or organized, is a mistake? So you're against tall buildings but also equally as opposed to mid-rise spread out over a larger area? Equating the two just doesn't fly.

Six highrises skyscrapers in one tiny pocket is totally putting the horse before the cart. Especially with housing sales falling in TO.

I don't think you know what that saying means, unless maybe you're referring to infrastructure? And as for selling them, we can let Pinnacle worry about that.

The "dead corner" can be revived...I'm not against large projects. Just mammoth Dubai-esque ones in lowly Toronto with its 2.6M people, low density, and 2.5 subway lines. We're not Manhattan or Hong Kong, and if you look at all the single family detached homes with garages in our downtown - it's apparent we never will be. Ever. Tossing up six skyscrapers in a small block just muddles the reality of what TO really is.

So because we're spread out, inefficient and needing upgraded public transit we shouldn't strive to improve? I've actually heard this argument in several forms on this forum. Why is it Toronto should be forever defined as such? Every major city is constantly evolving, maybe none more so than present day Toronto. To suggest we should remain stuck in the mud is silly.

 

[bleu]

The "dead corner" can be revived...I'm not against large projects. Just mammoth Dubai-esque ones in lowly Toronto with its 2.6M people, low density, and 2.5 subway lines. We're not Manhattan or Hong Kong, and if you look at all the single family detached homes with garages in our downtown - it's apparent we never will be. Ever. Tossing up six skyscrapers in a small block just muddles the reality of what TO really is.

I understand your concern but your argument makes no sense.

Low density: yes, but isn't it why we are building these towers, to increase density in downtown? Low density for downtown TO is bad, bad bad.
2.5 subway lines: I repeat it for the 6th time, people living downtown rely less on subway. I just don't get this "We don't have enough subway so too many people can't live downtown" logic. The fact that we don't have enough subway lines is probably precisely the reason people want to live downtown, at least for me it is - so that I can be less dependent on our pathetic subway. living downtown means you can walk to a whole lot more places without driving or taking transit. Walking from Front to Bloor is only 30 minutes!

Being not Manhattan means we can't add density and build this project? We should keep building 12 storey buildings? What about Chicago? They have quite a few supertalls close to each other too. why do 6 towers scare so you much? We need more of them! Toronto has a big downtown (12km sq) and can easily hold 2X more residents.

We do have many single detached homes with garages in downtown - too unfortunate, what a waste of space. This means that we should make better use of the land not occupied by low rise houses, instead of "yeah, we are lowrise, so let's keep it that way".

What reality of what TO really is? The reality is not good and we strive for something better. I hope 1 Yonge, the Mirvish triplets (you are probably oppose too since they are too tall) and the Oxford Place project can all become true.

Can I repeat again I hate this "because we don't have enough subway, so it is wrong to building more highrises downtown". it is such backward logic!

 

[44 North]

I'm not a planner or expert, so I can't put my feelings into proper words. But this is just too big, hideous, and clashes with what this city should really be doing - tying neighbourhoods together with appropriately-sized developments, allowing for some form of Toronto-specific conformity (without uniformity), and enforcing this city's (more specifically, Old Toronto's) identity - what that is...I dunno, but it's not this.

And with the city's transportation issues being as appaling as they, we should be increasing density slowly, appropropriately, and wisely. And Bleu, it's gotten to the point that even walking or cycling has become an issue. Sometimes it's slow as hell to ride anywhere on our narrow gridlocked streets, let alone find a bike ring that isn't in use. Even walking around our narrow, cluttered sidewalks can be an arduous task. As for the streetcars, we'll now be facing longer waits with the fewer vehicles...with the same slow service! Plus, the DRL is still unfunded and has now taken a backseat to the 'North York Relief Line' and 'Scarboro Relief Line'. Compare all this to Manhattan and Chicago which have enormous sidewalks, and a proper system of rapid transit and functioning surface routes.

All I see with this project is a whore-fest. There's little down by the water now, so let's let developers assume the role of the city's Planning dept while they try to maximize profits to the highest degree imaginable. And if it looks like shit 'n' glass that in no way reflects this city - and costs us a bundle to service this vertical neighbourhood - well at least we have something tall to brag about. That's what it boils down to for many it seems.

 

[khris]

My feelings about this development. Instead of building on top of the Toronto Star building, just tear it down, and put an awesome fountain or really cool public art and a square at the corner. Get rid of the Casa clone, and move the other buildings around a bit to use up the leftover space.

 

[44 North]

And I'm not against the 20-storey building comparison I gave. Just as long as it's done right: parks, ammenities, functional transit, variety in buildings, a human-scale aspect. This has none of that. It's single developer putting his mark on a cold block with minimal parkland even within 500m, there are no schools, little prexisting draw, and the overcrowded Union Stn is 700m away.

 

[khris]

And I'm not against the 20-storey building comparison I gave. Just as long as it's done right: parks, ammenities, functional transit, variety in buildings, a human-scale aspect. This has none of that. It's single developer putting his mark on a cold block with minimal parkland even within 500m, there are no schools, little prexisting draw, and the overcrowded Union Stn is 700m away.

Union will not be overcrowded by the time this would be built.

 

[isaidso]

My feelings about this development. Instead of building on top of the Toronto Star building, just tear it down, and put an awesome fountain or really cool public art and a square at the corner.

I'm not sure why so many want to wipe all traces of 70s office buildings from our inventory. Toronto Star is the only building down there with some texture and solidity to it. It acts as an anchor and wonderful juxtaposition to the glass all around it. This rush to destroy anything that doesn't mirror current ideas about beauty is really disturbing.

For crying out loud, not everything needs to look like it was built in 2013. It's this same type of thinking that caused us to lose the Temple Building and countless others like that. They weren't master pieces, but had value. The people of that time just didn't think so. People never learn from history.

 

[bleu]

And I'm not against the 20-storey building comparison I gave. Just as long as it's done right: parks, ammenities, functional transit, variety in buildings, a human-scale aspect. This has none of that. It's single developer putting his mark on a cold block with minimal parkland even within 500m, there are no schools, little prexisting draw, and the overcrowded Union Stn is 700m away.

I on the other hand consider it a sin to build anything new lower than 30 stories in the core (between Jarvis and Spadina). Let's stop trying making Toronto a quaint European kind of midrise city. It will never be. And what is human scale? People interpret it differently.

What's the fuss about schools? We pretend that families would want to live at 1 Yonge st, but are they?
Evan there are schools and parks around, will many families really be interested in buying a 2-3 bedroom condo on the 35th floor for $600K at 1 Yonge, plus $600 maintenance fees each month? Before making sure of that, it is pointless trying to make it "family-friendly". If you have $600k to spend, will you live at 1 Yonge in a 950sf 2 bedroom condo?

Not every neighbourhood in Toronto needs to be "family-friendly". Non-family people are as important as families. We need districts that are intentionally family-unfriendly too because many of us are not interested in a quiet family-friendly hood with nothing but dog parks, schools and grocery stores, which seems to be all families care about, and 1 Yonge definitely doesn't have to family friendly. The city of Toronto is not just about families and kids.

 

[44 North]

Well you'd think considering this is the equivalent of a small city that there'd be some effort to cater to people other than SINKs and DINKs. But alas we're not trying to make TO a 'quaint European kind of midrise city'. Why on earth would we be so stupid? Nope, we need to a create vertical cities that cater to a specific demographic, because that always leads to great things down the line (NOT!).

Plus, only a fool would think that people settled without kids and a spouse would care about parks, and grocery stores. Nope, just somewhere to sleep and bang, then go to work.


"Union will not be overcrowded by the time this would be built. "

Care to make a bet on that?