[rdaner]

A little noted but extremely important application is winding it's way City Hall. It is asking permission to build on the green space that surrounds a typical tower in the grass apartment building on Spadina. If this is allowed to go through, the effects on the built form of the city will be significant. There are literally hundreds of hectares of inner city land that can be freed up for development. As well, this is an excellent oppurtunity to repair some streetwalls, one at a time. I hope this is done well.

www.city.toronto.on.ca/legdocs/2005/agendas/committees/te/te050531/it011.pdf

 

[unimaginative2]

Interesting project! I think this is good news. Nice to see that these sites can be redeveloped. This is one of the better towers of that area, so I'm hesitant, but it looks pretty good.

 

[mark simpson]

Many developments such as this have been proposed and subsquently built over the last few years (albeit the usual buildings proposed are townhouses)

 

[scarberiankhatru]

I think something similar (ubiquitous townhomes) is proposed for a tower's front lawn on Pleasant Blvd., across the street from the St. Clair station bus loop. I also know of several condos proposed for grassy areas belonging to commie towers (Vic Park & Sheppard, Yonge & Park Home).

 

[Sir Novelty Fashion]

The PDF says that the tower at 100 Spadina is actually a Heritage Building (!).

I believe there's a similar project under consideration for the next slab down, at Spadina and Kendal (the one on Kendal whose sides seem pinched out at the bottom). A sign has been up for ages proposing an 8-story (?) residential development, I believe along Spadina.

Done well, either of these projects would do wonders for the street! Both would be even better...

 

[maxy505]

This could transform the city over a few short years -- more than Cityplace, or the waterfront, or anything else. Whole neighbourhoods could spring up fully formed. Think of the potential along Don Mills.

I don't think they'd be the best neighbourhoods, but vastly improved.

 

[Antiloop33rpm]

Very interesting potential in these kinds of developments. Two concerns. The first is that effort is taken to ensure that the historical context of the commie blocks is not destroyed too much. I would hate to see these towers simple turn into point slabs on newly constructed podiums. The second is that the lose of green space is compensated in some form. I think the best idea is cash in lieu of green space funds so the city can construct public parks in areas that would see large amonts of green space disappear.

Other than that, I think there is some interesting potential in this kind of development.

 

[p5archit]

Sorry, can someone explain to me the idea here- what makes this so ground-breaking- not that i do not believe it is, just a little lost that is all!

Is this the land surrounding the tower itself, or just in close proximity?

thanks!

p5

 

[boiler2000]

^ Most of this land (everything to the south of the tower) is a large surface parking lot which is part of the same complex. There isn't really any "green space" to speak of here.

 

[Sir Novelty Fashion]

So I just gave the PDF a thorough reading. I live a few buildings up the road from this, and I think it's fan-frigging-tastic.

P5, I think what's at play here is a rethinking of the "Tower in a park" idea that is so loathed by Jane Jacobs and mindless acolytes of hers like myself.

If you walk up Spadina, you'll notice that it's lined by rows of nice, dense houses, as well as some squat apartment buildings that are at least unobtrusive. But then you hit, in a couple of places, a commie block, where they've knocked out an entire row of houses and put up a massive towering slab that only occupies a fraction of the cleared space.

The gap stands out like a set of knocked-out teeth. It destroys the contiguity of the streetwall, along with the sense of enclosure, community, and linearity that goes with it. The idea was that tenants of the tower would frolic and idyll in the surrounding park, but it almost never works out that way. The parks wind up as wasted, largely unused space, the streets barren, and the slabs causing some brutal wind tunnels. (100 Spadina is especially bad for this.)

You see this all around Toronto. As time passes, I'm coming to realise that it's not the slabs that are offensive; it's the destruction they wreak on the cityscape at ground level that's so awful.

That's why projects like this are so exciting: they represent developers and residents coming around to the idea of streetwalls and sidewalks, not ill-conceived greenspace. These developments suture up the damage that the slabs did without demolishing them. If this is a trend, then that's faboo.

Is this kind of thing going on elsewhere in the city, do people know?

 

[bingoluther]

This is great to see. I've advocated for something like this for my neighbourhood, Islington Village. The small-town street scape on Dundas is obliterated where the high-rise apartment buildings are located. There's enough land between the buildings and the sidewalk to accommodate low-rise residential or (preferably) commercial additions in order to restore the streetwall. There are a couple of places where this was done. The eaton centre yonge street facade addition and the SW corner of Church and Wellesly.

I'm opposed to the suggestion that property owners be required to pay into a park fund in exchange for the right to develope the land. This type of developement is something you want to encourage. In any event, the land is seldomly used for recreational purposes.

 

[Sir Novelty Fashion]

In any event, the land is seldomly used for recreational purposes.

Yes, but I believe that the park fund in question is for the Annex park adjacent, which is actually quite actively used.

 

[Antiloop33rpm]

I'm opposed to the suggestion that property owners be required to pay into a park fund in exchange for the right to develope the land.

I wasnt suggesting making it a requirment per say, only something that the city should examine. It could simpley allow developers to get a way with less parking spaces in new developments and pool the additional 'cash in lieu of parking' money into a greenspace fund. Or some other kind of program by which they could ecnourage this kind of development while ensuring that greenspace will be provided, preferabley in the form of new public parks for the neighborhoods.

Adaptive redevelopment is nothing new. Its the same way that the Annex and other Canandian neighborhoods went from victorian suburbs to urban spaces by modifying the form of their sturctures. Its very encouraging to see this trend start to take place. What will be even more exciting is when this kind of development is undertaken on large scales, such as at the concrete jungle at Jane and Finch. It will certainly bring about an interesting new urban element to the city of more projects like this are undertaken.

 

[boiler2000]

I'm thinking that high desirability and land values are the main driving force behind this particular idea, not some new-found enlightenment on the part of developers. This also explains why it's happening here, and not at Jane and Finch.

There is simply no more free land to develop in the Annex, so new construction is going into back lanes, back yards and generous surface parking and greenspace allowances around towers.

 

[Sir Novelty Fashion]

^ yeah, I agree that it's economics in the end. But at the same time, there's lowrise street-facing developments going up in less developed areas (I've seen St. Clair / Keele and Warden Station with mine own eyes, and there's probably others) also.

And economics and desirability reflect (beyond land value) what developers THINK people will value and want to live in. There's a certain zeitgeist in there. You're right that you can't go wrong on Spadina, but you'll notice they're not trying to build more towers on the site.