News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
A Message to Our Readers
 9.6K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
EarthCam Time-Lapse Documents Rafael Viñoly-Designed New Stanford Hospital Construction
 41K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
Resort Town
 5.5K     0 

"b) High density doesn't require tall buildings."

buschic said:
I agree with everything you said, other than b)
Click to expand...

Athens+Aerial+1+-+Ampelokipi+-+small800x.jpg
 
kettal said:
is that a rendering of the fully developed Toronto islands?
Click to expand...

Yes, in fact, it illustrates the plan of completely infilling the inner harbour up to the islands, then developing it. As a concession to an otherwise spineless city council, there is a height limit, but as you can see, it has already been successful challenged at the OMB several times :p.
 
junctionist said:
Yes, in fact, it illustrates the plan of completely infilling the inner harbour up to the islands, then developing it. As a concession to an otherwise spineless city council, there is a height limit, but as you can see, it has already been successful challenged at the OMB several times :p.
Click to expand...

ahhh, thats what it was, ok, cool
 
And to continue on Hipster's excellent point that high density does not require tall buildings, I would argue that the density creating by lowrise/midrise neighbourhoods is preferrable (at the street level) to density created by a neighbourhood of towers. Think St. Jamestown or CityPlace vs. St. Lawrence, for example.
 
Forget building on it, you should one and all join me this Friday at Ward's Island Beach as I enjoy it in its current, tranquil, non-overbuilt state and celebrate the fact that Toronto has such a wonderful island in such a central location.
 
ganjavih said:
And to continue on Hipster's excellent point that high density does not require tall buildings, I would argue that the density creating by lowrise/midrise neighbourhoods is preferrable (at the street level) to density created by a neighbourhood of towers. Think St. Jamestown or CityPlace vs. St. Lawrence, for example.
Click to expand...

While I agree that high density does not require tall buildings, I wonder about the nature of this comparison, which invites a contrast as if it is self-evident. If we look at CityPlace vs. St. Lawrence, for instance, many of the complaints about CityPlace apply equally to St. Lawrence. I think the CityPlace/St. Lawrence comparison needs explaining - you can't just say "look at the two of them" and expect that it is self-evident that one is better. Many of the bitterest complaints of CityPlace (no street life, feels somehow estranged from the rest of the city, no commercial life, few restaurants, architectural sameness) apply in equal measure to St. Lawrence. The other point to be made, of course, is that St. Lawrence is 30 years on and established, while CityPlace remains a work in progress. The only significant greenspace there continues to be fenced off, new schools and libraries will eventually be built, the mix of residential uses is on the cusp of change, and we will have to see how it ages.

Having said all of this, I should point out that I think, on the whole, that St. Lawrence functions admirably in its role as a primarily residential enclave with mixed incomes in the heart of the city. Queen Street it is not, nor is it a part of the city that I would ever send a tourist to. But I remain agnostic about CityPlace in the same way, and feel that the measure of its success or failure will only be known in the next few decades.
 
Archivist said:
Having said all of this, I should point out that I think, on the whole, that St. Lawrence functions admirably in its role as a primarily residential enclave with mixed incomes in the heart of the city. Queen Street it is not, nor is it a part of the city that I would ever send a tourist to.
Click to expand...

In the most euphemistic sense of "tourist", of course. Now, if it were civic tourism, there'd be justification--and on that count, remember that it's also on the walking-way from St Lawrence Market to the Distillery District...
 
Archivist: Really? you wouldn't send a tourist there? You're talking about "Old Toronto" essentially and you wouldn't send a tourist there? No wonder people in this city think we don't have anything to offer tourists. St Lawrence and the area surrounding it (because let's remember, tourists don't care about arbitrary borders) would be one of the first places I'd send them.
 
I would not send a tourist down the Esplanade, no. St. Lawrence Market, YES, big nearby churches, YES, Distillery, MAYBE, but not down the Esplanade east of the market. Hell, my sisters were in town and I took them right through Regent Park to see the work that was happening there, and they were really interested in that. But no, we didn't walk down the Esplanade. I don't think they would "get it".

I suppose if I had a friend interested in urban planning I would, but not otherwise.
 
You said St Lawrence, not specifically the Esplanade. If you meant the Esplanade, then fine, I agree, I probably wouldn't take someone there either unless they were interested in rail history or if there was something better there to tell people about the old Parliament building that sat at the end of the Esplanade. (and I'd probably take a tourist to the distillery... at least for dinner or something. It's an interesting place with a good history).
 
jn, I thought we probably agreed on that. For me, St. Lawrence is the area south of Front, and the other areas, Toronto's "old towne" as it were, I think of somehow separately.
 
So.....nobody coming along to Ward's tomorrow then?

Do you know how much wine I bought? Quite enough for quite a few.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top