Sorry for the size of this, but if you look at the site plan, it'll be built up underneath, with access to the buildings, the PATH system, and retail units interspersed throughout.... I read the plan wrong, so it won't be "plaza-ish" underneath, but at least it won't be wasted space.

16yorksiteplan.png
 
ah ha - so that drawing gives us a much clearer idea about the shape of the office component which in part plays off the shapes of the residential buildings. And they will have a turntable loading dock just like FCP!
 
i'm still confused. does that picture mean that the "podium" is actually at ground level?
 
It is too bad that there is only a PATH connection to the the east side of York and not a connection to 18 York going north of Bremner.
 
scarberiankhatru said:
It's your definition of urban that I took issue with. Having people present is actually a very good measure of urbanity...what the hell good is "pedestrian-friendliness" if there's no people? You forget that one critical component of pedestrian-friendliness is the sheer number of people walking around.
Click to expand...

There is more to urban than just having people present, a shopping mall in Brampton is not urban just because there are crowds there!

...Nevertheless, I do seem to recall you taking issue with the whole 'pedestrian-friendliness' issue. So please clarify for me then: 'pedestrian-friendly' bad, 'lots of people' good?... Is that it?


scarberiankhatru said:
I'm acknowledging that Toronto's suburbs and places like Bremner are urbanizing in many different ways (ways that do not converge on one monolithic version of urbanity that is highly ignorant of reality), and you base your opinions on planning buzzwords and the desire for world class neighbourhoods, but I'm the one with preconceived notions. Hilarious!
Click to expand...

I'm eager to understand this chimera of yours that places all over are urbanizing in 'different ways'. Please explain. I mean, places are either 'urban' or not, have urban qualities or not, or are becoming urban or not but this has absolutely nothing to do with height of buildings present, eye colour of people there, how much those people earn, whether they are cool or 'hip' or not, or whether they enjoy Tim Horton's or $10 lattes.

...Furthermore, you seem to enjoy espousing the 'suburbs' as being 'urban' but if a particular suburb does in fact have urban qualities then it stands to reason that the place is in fact likely 'urban'. Cool! However, this would also mean that it is no longer really a 'suburb' except in the very strictest sense of the word, which would only be in terms of its geographic proximity to Toronto.


scarberiankhatru said:
You seem only interested in areas that merit inclusion on guide book maps, so why not use Queen West as an example? You've already said you'd rather see it copied and pasted all over the city than risk building something that may not turn out identical to Manhattan. North York Centre is urban, and it is not less so just because it's not trendy. You disagree, either because it's located in "the suburbs," or because it doesn't resemble a Haussmann boulevard, or because you think it's not "pedestrian-friendly" enough, as if that meant anything other than empty rhetoric.
Click to expand...

1. I've repeated here, ad nauseum, that my understanding of 'urban' is not circumscribed by demographics, and is not limited to a literal translation of Queen Street.

2. I've never expressed the desire or opinion that we should imitate or copy Manhattan in the newly developing areas of Toronto, at least not in the literal sense that you imply. In terms of 'urbanity', pure and simple, however, then I'd be all for it!

3. You have demonstrated a clear problem with the term 'pedestrian-friendly', yet your tirade above indicates that your only criterion for urbanity is having people present... There is medication available for such psychosis!



scarberiankhatru said:
If even one more planning report was applied to the Bremner area, it'd be the wafer thin mint that makes Mr. Creosote explode.
Click to expand...

I disagree. This is only 'city building' after all. Still, I'm too tired to argue. Peace :)
 
I have a problem with using the term "pedestrian-friendly" as the decisive factor in whether or not a place is urban because the term is almost completely meaningless when tied to "urban."

Your desire for intentional messy urbanism or planned organic growth, that reproduces Queen Street or Midtown Manhattan in one building cycle, all the while being trendy and world class, is simply not possible. Absolutely nothing can be done to satisfy your requirements. We cannot create hundred year old neighbourhoods in one step...we shouldn't even try, or we'll end up with the worst New Urbanist or PoMo schlock that corporate dollars can buy. No matter what we build, it's going to be and feel like a new neighbourhood and nothing will be established or have the patina of world class urban charm that you think makes or breaks a place.

You can say this project isn't very urban because it's not pedestrian-friendly, yet you're basing this on a rendering taken from a helicopter's perspective, or from past experience walking through parking lots around the Gardiner, or by comparing it to North York Centre, a rapidly urbanizing area that, like it or not, is pedestrian-friendly (and has the crowds, the street retail, and local car-less residents to prove it). Since you refuse to recognize forms of urbanity when you see it, we're going to have to agree to disagree. An ugly windswept zone made entirely of concrete may be inhospitable, but that doesn't make it less urban...and the Bremner area won't even be like that, if projects like 16 York are any indication.
 
From Adam Vaughan's Newsletter:

Councillor Vaughan and Councillor Pam McConnell attended a meeting regarding the proposed development at 16 York Street, chaired by area planner Al Rezoski. This was a statutory meeting for this project, proposed by Lanterra Developments, who are also developing Maple Leaf Square across the street next to the Air Canada Centre. The proposal calls for two residential point towers (55 and 65 storey), an office building (31 storey), with retail uses at grade. It would also create a public plaza that opens onto Grand Trunk Crescent, and the three buildings would be connected in between by an elevated green roof that would provide weather protection below. The proposal would include a connection to the PATH system.

Residents at the meeting suggested that the plaza be designed to ensure that it is safe and people-friendly, especially at night, and that it not include vehicle access. They also suggested that retail uses be selected to appeal to the broader neighbourhood, not just residents and office workers. Some residents raised concerns about the heights of the proposed buildings, as well as traffic impacts in the neighbourhood. Councillor Vaughan promised that traffic lights would be requested for the neighbourhood at key intersections to try and mitigate the impact of the suburban-style road design in the area.
 
16 York St. - 65s/55s/31s (aA)

Whoah!!! :eek:
 
Project is called - Ice Condo's at York Centre.

2 High-rise condo's at 65 and 55 stories. 1 31 storey 800,000 sq ft office building. Design by Peter Clewes. LEED certified. Designed in a Scandanavian Designed theme with perhaps the largest green roof ever developed in Toronto.
Click to expand...

wait a minute....isn't this the 3 tower project at 16 York? I thought that 18 York was a single office tower?
 
yo cruzin, this is where you want to post that render....:)
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top