News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
 4.7K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 12K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 2.1K     0 

drum118

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 25, 2007
Messages
17,178
Reaction score
13,258
City:
Toronto
March 24
The new reclaim land from the Six Point interchange along with the exist land beside it is large enough to house at least 3 towers, The reclaim land on the west side of Beamish is being landscape at this time.
49697628943_61c7a5a3af_b.jpg

49698468947_d67e512723_b.jpg

49697630253_873ba62bb1_b.jpg

49698163781_f74ba37bdf_b.jpg

49698469947_1aef74a231_b.jpg

49697632513_46e5b206ae_b.jpg
 

Amare

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Feb 4, 2015
Messages
4,060
Reaction score
5,418
And yet we're seeking 40-50+ stories around Humber Bay, The Queensway, Sherway Gardens, etc..

This is Exhibit A as to what's wrong with Toronto; we plan for densities that are too low in areas well served by transit and other infrastructure, while in areas that have no transit and infrastructure we shoot for the moon. I honestly dont know what kind of "planning" we do in this city anymore.
 

AlexBozikovic

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Aug 14, 2011
Messages
470
Reaction score
1,903
The only hope for this is that an ambitious developer wins the RFP. With any of the usual suspects, this will be a totally grim place. Lots of undifferentiated open space, awkward massing, not enough density to support any good retail. What a waste.
 

toaster29

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Mar 4, 2015
Messages
304
Reaction score
119
Aren't the existing heights on nearby Viking Lane over 100m? Why would they go with lower heights with a better planned/pedestrian streets, and a huge NEED for more housing. Does not make any sense to me. This is where Eau Du Soleil heights should be, on the subway. Not where there is no access to rapid transit. Unbelievable.
 

innsertnamehere

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
Mar 8, 2010
Messages
16,114
Reaction score
13,112
City:
Toronto
Aren't the existing heights on nearby Viking Lane over 100m? Why would they go with lower heights with a better planned/pedestrian streets, and a huge NEED for more housing. Does not make any sense to me. This is where Eau Du Soleil heights should be, on the subway. Not where there is no access to rapid transit. Unbelievable.
Because it's the city and a 50m tower looks "nicer" and upsets the NIMBY's less. Screw the 300 residents that don't have a home from those 17 floors you lopped off the tower. Oh, and you may as well throw in 50m tower separations too to make sure those residents have nice views! Just ignore the 500 people now without homes because you lopped off that extra tower..
 

Amare

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Feb 4, 2015
Messages
4,060
Reaction score
5,418
We talk about induced demand here on UT all the time, but there should be another phenomenon named "Toronto Planning Development Gridlock". Essentially named after the trend of Toronto creating unnecessary traffic gridlock by over-densifying in areas where mass development is not warranted and cant be accommodated, and under developing where development is warranted and infrastructure can handle additional strain.
 

Translude15

Frank the Tank
Member Bio
Joined
Aug 12, 2008
Messages
674
Reaction score
305
Because it's the city and a 50m tower looks "nicer" and upsets the NIMBY's less. Screw the 300 residents that don't have a home from those 17 floors you lopped off the tower. Oh, and you may as well throw in 50m tower separations too to make sure those residents have nice views! Just ignore the 500 people now without homes because you lopped off that extra tower..

I live in the area and the NIMBY's have a lot of clout here. We'll be hard pressed to see any development on the north side of Dundas east of Kipling because of how higher densities will obstruct their precious single-family views and create more congestion. The proposal at Cloverdale is very conceptual at this stage but who knows how that will end up.
 

Top