innsertnamehere

innsertnamehere

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
Mar 8, 2010
Messages
19,309
Reaction score
22,642
City:
Toronto

presentation here:


architectural set here:


21,000 units, 1.5 million sf of office, 300k sf of retail.

The Bridge Station Transit Oriented Community consultation is tonight at 6:30. I'm sure that one will be equally aggressive..

 
Last edited:
This is certainly something.

ht.png
 
interchange42 said:
Look at alllll thaaaat Yellow Belt around it.

42
Click to expand...

Northern Light said:
An asynchronicity exemplified.
Click to expand...
At the meeting I asked if there were any plans to densify the surrounding yellowbelt because SFHs will look very odd next to 50+ storey towers (and less than 10 mins walk from a subway station). Believe it or not, one of the reps said the density is intentional to protect neighborhoods from densifying--almost verbatim. SMH.
 
given that Richmond Hill (and Vaughan, upper left) are existing suburbs, it's not really surprising, is it? Generally, speaking, I think it's fair to say the "spine" we've seen marching along Yonge from Highway 401 will continue, probably all the way to Major Mac. Just as in Toronto, the internal blocks aren't going to change that much but if you can get this kind of density at the node (and one more substantial than North York Centre) that's not so bad.

And it's essentialy a private development in the growth centre. Why is the yellowbelt a concern of the developer, or IO?

EDIT: Just to add, this is the proposed MTSA for Richmond Hill Centre; an MTSA that will clearly absolutely crush the required density targets. We can quibble about the yellowbelt (especially in an architect's drawing, I guess) but it's hard to argue there's a lot of homes in here that should be on the chopping block, as a matter of principle

1639540779388.png
 
Last edited:
Undead said:
At the meeting I asked if there were any plans to densify the surrounding yellowbelt because SFHs will look very odd next to 50+ storey towers (and less than 10 mins walk from a subway station). Believe it or not, one of the reps said the density is intentional to protect neighborhoods from densifying--almost verbatim. SMH.
Click to expand...

It's obvious as hell that it's always about shoving density required by growth targets in order to spare the yellow belt from development pressure - and I am not sure if this combination is healthy.

AoD
 
Firstly, I'm all for opening up the yellowbelt. But I'm not sure why these things are mutually exclusive.

This has literally been in the Growth Plan since 2006. They made a greenbelt and drew a line around the GTA and said, "You will intensify, within these lines."
Then they made 25 little dots and said, "But here, you will REALLY intensify."
And we always knew this would be one of the "really, really"s, because of the transit convergence and the virtual blank slate presented by the current uses (both here and in Langstaff Gateway).

And that's what they're doing, finally. It's not remotely news that there would be big towers at this exact site, nor is it news that the Richvale neighbourhood to the west isn't going anywhere any time soon. Royal Orchard and historic Thornhill aren't going anywhere soon either, but as I said above, you will be getting very significant density along the Yonge corridor, along its entire 401-Major Mac length. From Steeles to the growth centre alone, you're talking about something like 100,000 residents. The Growth Centre itself is supposed to be like its own little city (well, 2 of them, kinda), by design. Always has been.

We should also be loosening zoning etc. etc. but it's really a separate argument (and one triggered by, I mean, a massing model that's not designed to show the development in its future context, or it would also show Langstaff - but all those towers in one graphic would REALLY scare people) so I really don't understand the surprise or scepticism about the execution of a plan we've been watching for 15 years now. If someone showed you this in 1995 and said, "That's Richmond Hill," you'd laugh at them. "80 storeys in Richmond Hill? Sure! Sure!" I've spent most of that time on the YNSE forum, arguing the entire point of the subway was to facilitate this level of intensification; something RER could never do.

Now somehow it's unhealthy?
 
ProjectEnd said:
The Province making the worst, fast-cash, instincts of a paper 'developer' possible?
Click to expand...
Considering that the Places to Grow Act minimum density targets have been there since 2006....no?

And also, Metrolinx and The Big Move were made to coordinate with P2G Act (they were supposed to be built out in conjunction!) so the subway/rapid transit has been on paper for RHC for well over the 15 years now.
 
steveve said:
Was getting 'mega-development in Chinese city you've never heard of' vibes with these renderings, realizing afterward they were in fact done by a rendering firm based in China 😅:

Here's an expanded view taken from the architectural plans:

View attachment 369272
Click to expand...
:)

This expanded version shows what I was talking about above. Note that not a single, new building is shown in Langstaff or along Yonge Street. So just because you see houses there doesn't mean this is what it will look like. Heck, by 2030 the surroundings won't look like this.

(If anyone with Photohop skills wants to add the Langstaff renderings to this, that would be fun to see!)
 
Frontop is Quadrangle's go-to for renderings, and of course does it in the typical chinese style. Which is why you get oddities like HSR trains running on subway tracks and terrible representations of surrounding buildings.

If you look closely at most BDPQ renderings you'll notice Frontop's visualization style.

Also looks like they forgot to take the Frontop watermark off before publishing them for some reason..
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top