[adma]

I'm interested in how you would propose to increase population density to the point where the area is economically viable?

Perhaps the question is more, is this the kind of area which really needed to fall into that economic viability/increased-population-density trap?

A question which, in its fundamentals, should have been addressed a decade and a half ago...

 

[ShonTron]

Interesting how this guy came out of nowhere, resurrecting an old poll and started questioning the opposition to the towers. Nothing wrong with that, but interesting nonetheless.

There was a huge debate here.

Of course, I have been of the opinion that the overrated Clewes towers that are dominating an unique Victorian industrial landscape was a mistake, putting profit before a more sympathetic plan maintaining the art, coffee and booze businesses and making any residential condos interfere less with the landscape. It's a lost opportunity that I think will be later lamented. This should have been thought out earlier, and now, after fixing the district, the developer, I feel, has done a bit of a bait-and-switch.

The "either you get dull slabs or tall point towers, pick one" line of thought bugs me.

 

[Zzzzzz]

Interesting how this guy came out of nowhere, resurrecting an old poll and started questioning the opposition to the towers. Nothing wrong with that, but interesting nonetheless.

There was a huge debate here.

Of course, I have been of the opinion that the overrated Clewes towers that are dominating an unique Victorian industrial landscape was a mistake, putting profit before a more sympathetic plan maintaining the art, coffee and booze businesses and making any residential condos interfere less with the landscape. It's a lost opportunity that I think will be later lamented. This should have been thought out earlier, and now, after fixing the district, the developer, I feel, has done a bit of a bait-and-switch.

The "either you get dull slabs or tall point towers, pick one" line of thought bugs me.

"This guy", is a purchaser in the second phase. I simply did a Google to see what's going on as I have a vested interest and up came this thread...up front and no conspiracy theory to be had here

In an ideal world I agree to leave it alone, but the fact remains, and this can't be disputed, that the distillery was a relatively unknown area that was slowly decaying. And it wasn't until someone, in this case a developer, put up their own money to risk resurrecting it, albeit not in a purist way, but this is the reality of our economics.

Where were all of the idealists when it was just a decaying movie shoot, I don't recall anyone coming to save the day and prepared to put their money where their mouth is...the city certainly wasn't prepared!

 

[ShonTron]

Well welcome. Thanks for the intro, and I'm glad your Google search found us.

 

[Zzzzzz]

Well welcome. Thanks for the intro, and I'm glad your Google search found us.

Thanks!

 

[urbandreamer]

No. You take the height of the tower, divide by 4, and get one 12 story building instead of a puny podium with an awkward tower sticking up out of nowhere. To hell with "public space." Why are rich urbanites so concerned about public space when they can easily afford their own private space? I've never understood these people.

I've often wondered: Urban Shocker, are you buddies with the Clewes gang or these developers?

Either way, defending an uncreative solution is just ...well undefendable! (Point towers are so 2001.)

 

[Urban Shocker]

Dumpy "fear of height" blocks are so 1995.

 

[urbandreamer]

No. This discussion has nothing to do with tall buildings; rather, the appropriate location for tall buildings.

Now let's take Cabbagetown as an example. We've got an historic lowrise wealthy neigbhourhood surrounded by apartment highrises. Should we "de-gentrify" the neighbourhood by placing three 50-story Clewes highrises within an old Victorian area, just because, well...democracy says the area needs more renters?

 

[Zzzzzz]

No. This discussion has nothing to do with tall buildings; rather, the appropriate location for tall buildings.

Now let's take Cabbagetown as an example. We've got an historic lowrise wealthy neigbhourhood surrounded by apartment highrises. Should we "de-gentrify" the neighbourhood by placing three 50-story Clewes highrises within an old Victorian area, just because, well...democracy says the area needs more renters?

I respectfully disagree; there is an underlying tone here that has more to do with the whole idea of Towers, than your analogy on Cabbagetown!

As for your formula for success "divide by 4, and get one 12 story building instead", I'm just glad you're not building rockets! I'm not an urban planner so I don't know the numbers for success or a healthy balance but I would be surprised that your formula would result in anything successful or even attractive.

Let's not forget, more density means many positive things as well, two examples are, more people using the same resources = better efficiency, and a larger tax base to draw from for those social programs that some of these posters are no doubt big fans of!

As for your point about "defending an uncreative solution is just ...well undefendable"...well that's just simply a silly statement!

 

[urbandreamer]

My point: point towers are the lazy man's solution to density/eco/whatever problem. Even a Pier 27-style development would have been preferable to that silly looking "tall ship" fleet parked in the DD. How about all the parking in the DD--what if they'd "spread the love around?"

The DD is not a dense area, nor will it ever be with just 3 point towers; or approximately 1000 units. You're telling me 1000 units couldn't have been integrated into the DD within a 10-12 story height limit?

Imo, the only reasons point towers were built in the DD: they're trendy and cheaper to build!

 

[Urban Shocker]

What's wrong with sensible economics and building in the contemporary vernacular?

 

[adma]

Dumpy "fear of height" blocks are so 1995.

Old distilleries are so 1865.

 

[Hydrogen]

Yeah, knock the whole thing down and put up a big bunch of contemporary vernacular towers. As adma has pointed out, the whole place is sooo out of date.

 

[ganjavih]

Yeah, the sooner the Distillery is eliminated, the better. It has no place in the modern city.

Modern Urban Utopia

 

[Urban Shocker]

Just as old distilleries are so 1865, and dumpy "fear of height" condo blocks* are so 1995, so sleek point towers are so 2007.

*The Great Man himself described that era - in his recent Globe interview with Johnny Boy - as "Let's be apologetic, let's say we're not inserting additional density in this precinct."

All reflect their time, and we're not in 1995 any more.