News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
 5.5K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 26K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 2.7K     0 

Amare

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Feb 4, 2015
Messages
4,419
Reaction score
6,399
C'mon now really? So you're really telling me 200 metre skyrises wouldnt be out of place somewhere like here:

1634924075454.png


Or on the South side of Mimico:

1634924507726.png


Im all for development but you need to take the neighbourhood context into account at some point in time. If there are SFH homes right next door (right of wrong), you need to take that into consideration.


Is it possible to fit five skyscraper towers on this parcel of land? It like three or four!
Certainly I think so, just take a look south there are similar plot sizes that accommodate that tower scale:

1634923761199.png


1634923806227.png
 

Attachments

  • 1634924052156.png
    1634924052156.png
    1.3 MB · Views: 34

cd concept

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Oct 4, 2014
Messages
2,108
Reaction score
1,141
The exact number would depend on how much space needs to be allocated to roads, and parks.

But if you assumed as little as 40% would be tower footprint, you'd be closer to six towers. Note that I have not literally looked at how that would work in terms of hypothetical separation distances, buffers/setbacks.............etc.
Wow! It's bad enough that we have to put most of the people in condos these days . At least give them a view for the price they pay to live in one!
 

DopeyFish

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jul 25, 2017
Messages
191
Reaction score
272
I think it's pretty self explanatory as to why. Having 5x200 metre towers on one side of the street, followed by single family homes that will never be redevelopped to high-rise right on the opposite side of the street is outright silly.

but this is how it is even in downtown toronto
 

Towered

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 24, 2007
Messages
7,229
Reaction score
6,778
C'mon now really? So you're really telling me 200 metre skyrises wouldnt be out of place somewhere like here:

View attachment 357377

Or on the South side of Mimico:

View attachment 357379

Im all for development but you need to take the neighbourhood context into account at some point in time. If there are SFH homes right next door (right of wrong), you need to take that into consideration.



Certainly I think so, just take a look south there are similar plot sizes that accommodate that tower scale:

View attachment 357374

View attachment 357375
Context can and should change. I would argue that it's the SFH's that are inappropriate and should be replaced.
 

allengeorge

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jun 27, 2019
Messages
1,315
Reaction score
3,110
Context can and should change. I would argue that it's the SFH's that are inappropriate and should be replaced.
100% agree with this. For some reason we talk about context in Toronto as if it’s meant to be set in stone. Maybe it is by Toronto Planning and Councillors, but there’s no reason it should be, and there are solid arguments that locking it in is for the worse.
 

Amare

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Feb 4, 2015
Messages
4,419
Reaction score
6,399
but this is how it is even in downtown toronto
But this is not in downtown Toronto, it's in Etobicoke. Might I add, it's not even Etobicoke City Centre (which by the way wont see developments anywhere near 200m).

Context can and should change. I would argue that it's the SFH's that are inappropriate and should be replaced.
We can debate about whether more SFH's should be intensified or not, but at the end of the day we know they wont see mass scale intensifaction. This is why you adapt to the neighborhood context, not just plough through high-rise developments with no consideration for that fact.
 

allengeorge

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jun 27, 2019
Messages
1,315
Reaction score
3,110
We can debate about whether more SFH's should be intensified or not, but at the end of the day we know they wont see mass scale intensifaction. This is why you adapt to the neighborhood context, not just plough through high-rise developments with no consideration for that fact.
I disagree on multiple grounds: first, that context is something we should care about, next, that context with regards to SFH is something we should prioritize, and third, that this is the developer’s problem.

First, it’s not clear that context is something that should be protected or maintained - especially across the city. And, even then: why do we focus on physical context vs demographic context? These communities have changed over time, risen and dropped in population and the makeup of the people living there. Yet, why is physical context so crucial to fossilize?

Next, adapting to neighbourhood context here simply enshrines the broken state of planning in Toronto, in that we simply enshrine the primacy of SFH in Toronto zoning. We should be taking every step to move away from that. And yes, I’m ok if that means building towers next to them.

Finally, this entire situation is occurring because of the city’s insistence on forcing all development into certain areas and along avenues. It’s in the city’s power to change the mechanics of which buildings are built next to each other: make it easier to build missing-middle and midrise in yellowbelt zones and there’ll be less of this vast disparity in ‘context’.
 

Northern Light

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
May 20, 2007
Messages
18,829
Reaction score
43,263
I disagree on multiple grounds: first, that context is something we should care about, next, that context with regards to SFH is something we should prioritize, and third, that this is the developer’s problem.

First, it’s not clear that context is something that should be protected or maintained - especially across the city. And, even then: why do we focus on physical context vs demographic context? These communities have changed over time, risen and dropped in population and the makeup of the people living there. Yet, why is physical context so crucial to fossilize?

You know that you and I share a desire for urban intensification and progressive planning, but I must say, I think you're being a bit extreme here; both in your description of @Amare 's thoughts and in respect of the absolute statement you're advocating.

I'll let Amare speak for himself; but I don't think he suggested fossilizing anything. There was no suggestion that the developer building SFH, Townhomes, lowrises or even fill the site w/midrise; only that it should likely transition downwards from south to north to reflect the lower rise form present on the north side of Queensway. There was no suggestion that the transition has to be down to 2s, 3s etc, just that a 40s streetwall on Queensway might not be the most sensible or reasonable plan, and I don't think that seems quite like the apostasy of progressive planning.

*****

It's absolutely true that neighbourhoods change, and that this one should, and will, over time.

Yes, the smaller homes, especially those close to Queensway will likely rebuilt over time as lowrise rental/condo, perhaps even midrise; but the idea of wholesale hirise towers seems unlikely.
That's not merely a function of taste or fossilized planning, it's local infrastructure capacity (roads, transit, schools, sewers, watermains) Note that side streets, typically, have smaller sewers and water mains that larger arterial roads, and it's not an immaterial expense to rebuild them all. Which is to say, change will come, but not all at once, and probably not to the extent seen to the south; it seems reasonable to me to consider both what is currently present, and what's likely to be over the next two decades and not be indifferent to that.

Next, adapting to neighbourhood context here simply enshrines the broken state of planning in Toronto, in that we simply enshrine the primacy of SFH in Toronto zoning. We should be taking every step to move away from that. And yes, I’m ok if that means building towers next to them.

I'm not sure anyone advocated newly enshrining anything. In fact, I think it's fair to say everyone expects intensification and upward movement in these communities over time. The question is merely how much, in this particular spot.

Finally, this entire situation is occurring because of the city’s insistence on forcing all development into certain areas and along avenues. It’s in the city’s power to change the mechanics of which buildings are built next to each other: make it easier to build missing-middle and midrise in yellowbelt zones and there’ll be less of this vast disparity in ‘context’.

Yes.....to a point...........but it isn't that easy, see the infrastructure questions I raised above. Consider how far the interior of certain areas is from transit or the road grid; also consider that SFH will be retained in some areas; and that isn't evil, LOL It's part of a healthy mix of uses to meet the needs of a range of residents. We over-protect that designation now; and overly prescriptive within it, in certain respects; but I don't think it's desirable or affordable to assume we wipe out all yellow belt per se, in its entirety. Though, to be clear, I favour as-of-right permission for everything up to a 4-plex and for purpose-built rental within every yellowbelt area, in addition to more substantially upzoning, as-of-right, on all arterial roads.
 

Amare

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Feb 4, 2015
Messages
4,419
Reaction score
6,399
I disagree on multiple grounds: first, that context is something we should care about, next, that context with regards to SFH is something we should prioritize, and third, that this is the developer’s problem.

First, it’s not clear that context is something that should be protected or maintained - especially across the city. And, even then: why do we focus on physical context vs demographic context? These communities have changed over time, risen and dropped in population and the makeup of the people living there. Yet, why is physical context so crucial to fossilize?

Next, adapting to neighbourhood context here simply enshrines the broken state of planning in Toronto, in that we simply enshrine the primacy of SFH in Toronto zoning. We should be taking every step to move away from that. And yes, I’m ok if that means building towers next to them.

Finally, this entire situation is occurring because of the city’s insistence on forcing all development into certain areas and along avenues. It’s in the city’s power to change the mechanics of which buildings are built next to each other: make it easier to build missing-middle and midrise in yellowbelt zones and there’ll be less of this vast disparity in ‘context’.
While it's true the physical context and characteristics of any given neighborhood changes over time, we have to keep in mind that it is important to keep a diverse range of housing stalk in our city. Whether we hate it or not, SFH's will always play an important role in the livability of this city and there will be people who want to live in these housing arrangements. It would not be prudent or wise to transform the entire City of Toronto into Manhattan where all we see in every single street are midrises at the very minimum. All that would do is push people who want to live in the city limits out, and force them into the suburbs which would ultimately lead to more people commuting into/out of the city thus pushing up congestion (amongst many other problems).

To be clear, im not against upsizing some SFH's, but we need to be cautious on this. To take a brush and paint the entire city mid-rise or high-rise would be severely misguided and problematic. On the other hand, having SFHs front most arterial roads like Sheppard Ave is backwards thinking.

In today's day and age, we see virtually no SFH's being built within the city so we have to build around the existing stock we have. In some areas we'll see mid-rise built around that stock, in others stacked townhouses, and high-rise in others (ie: downtown).

With respect this this particular area, yes sure upsize those SFH's to midrises along The Queensway there's absolutely nothing wrong with that. But if we're talking about razing all the homes north of that in favor of towering builds a la Humber Bay style, then yes i'm firmly against that and believe that's extremely poor planning. This is an area that will likely stay low-rise for the foreseeable future and we have to build knowing that fact. If not we just end up with severe infrastructure problems for these areas which were never designed to accommodate for that (and we have numerous examples in this city where we've zoned for population growth which cannot be accommodated from an infrastructure perspective).

Actually now that I come to think of it, Milton (to a lesser extent) is a prime example of a city/town which has seen intensification jammed down its throat but literally cannot handle anything more without drastic infrastructure improvements. The last thing we need is Toronto to become a large scale version of that.
 

Northern Light

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
May 20, 2007
Messages
18,829
Reaction score
43,263
According to the Lobbyist Registry..............the Toronto Wholesale Produce Association has taken an interest in this one {hired their own lobbyist)....... hmmm
 

Amare

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Feb 4, 2015
Messages
4,419
Reaction score
6,399
Interesting, if im reading between the lines this could suggest a Food Terminal expansion? 🤔
 

Northern Light

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
May 20, 2007
Messages
18,829
Reaction score
43,263
Interesting, if im reading between the lines this could suggest a Food Terminal expansion? 🤔

I don't know.

But my speculation would be concerns about:

1) Traffic, how will more traffic impact movements into/out of the Food Terminal.
2) How can access to the OFT lands be improved for pedestrians/cyclists/vehicles

I think that's probably it.

I'm not aware of any OFT expansion contemplated, if there were, I'd think it would be on the existing site.

But it's certainly possible they want any development here to allow for that possibility.

That would mean windows at lower levels might be a concern, depending on the layout of the buildings.
 

interchange42

Administrator
Staff member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
25,725
Reaction score
29,385
City:
Toronto
2) How can access to the OFT lands be improved for pedestrians/cyclists/vehicles
There is very little pedestrian ingress and egress to and from the site. The vehicular entrances and exits are rarely backed up, and seem to be able to handle the traffic fine.

The east end of the OFT will very likely be impacted by a new north-south road connecting The Queensway and Lake Shore through the plaza, so the OLT will have to be in on any planning because of that; they may lose a little land.

125QueenswaytoLakeShore.jpg


42
 

Top