[adma]

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

Part of the mass listing of Uno Prii buildings a few years ago...

 

[urbanboyto]

That is a Uni Pii building? It looks like just another faceless commie slab.

 

[Antiloop33rpm]

To be far North American urbanism has pretty much always been market driven. Yes Jacobs and Duaney and even other such as Le Corbousier have had some impact on how cities grew. However it was hyper consumer ideals and the economics behind it that lead to the suburban sprawl we see today. It was high real estate prices that lead to high rises being the dominant form in downtown Toronto in terms of new residential building. And just as in this case it is development desire to make money on infill projects that is leading to these tower in the park infills we are now seeing.

I would say the only arguable difference is that in this case the city has a chance to capitalize on this desire to help create new urban areas in the city, add density, and still retain a lot of the qualities that lead towers in the park to be built in the first place. While it may not have come about due a sudden change in developer ethos and new found social responsibility, it is still a really good opportunity non the less to capitalize on and for the city and citizens to use to its advantage.

 

[Sir Novelty Fashion]

Yes, economics dictates that the tower is the dominant form being built in downtown Toronto. But what is the form of the tower? Why aren't the new towers downtown being built as towers in the park, or towers in the parking lot? Why are they building out to the street now? Why is attention - however insufficient at times - being paid to podiums and ground-level retail?

Because thinking changes, amongst architects, amongst developers, amongst planners, and (perhaps least) amongst consumers.

There is a fundamental difference between this infill project and the project that originally cleared the site. The same economic pressures will yield very different developments, depending on what point in time you apply them at. Based on what I see, I think this is a good time.

 

[Brighter Hell]

To be far North American urbanism has pretty much always been market driven. Yes Jacobs and Duaney and even other such as Le Corbousier have had some impact on how cities grew. However it was hyper consumer ideals and the economics behind it that lead to the suburban sprawl we see today. It was high real estate prices that lead to high rises being the dominant form in downtown Toronto in terms of new residential building. And just as in this case it is development desire to make money on infill projects that is leading to these tower in the park infills we are now seeing.

it's more than just the market. it's what governments encourage, and as much as governments like to say they support intensification, through their everyday actions they still encourage sprawl (maybe not the city of toronto but most in north america). real estate prices alone don't explain towers - look at europe.