arvelomcquaig said:
I agree. At least 95% of the city is short buildings and open sky, so I don't see what's so terrible about a few areas being really tall. I wish the whole city was as dense and enclosed as this proposes because I, too, love how it feels—the indoor-outdoor, sheltered feeling of extreme tall density—but at least the downtown should become more like this.
Click to expand...

This isn't downtown. It's Yorkville. I agree with that statement. Put super talls on Bloor and on major intersections. Not a quiet gateway corner like this one.

And as usual, I don't understand the contextual fit argument. Who cares if it doesn't fit in? What's important is whether it is a better or worse model for density/height. Buildings shouldn't replicate the height/density of their contexts purely for the sake of visual harmony. If most buildings in a given urban area are only two or three storeys, then they're too short, and new buildings need to set a new standard for height and density.
Click to expand...


Context assists in carving out true neighborhoods. Without context Toronto becomes a giant cluster of Cityplace/Park Place desolate wastelands. Not to mention the wind tunnel affect. I know some of you have commented that you can mitigate that affect through proper tapering but tell that to the residents of Cityplace, MLS, ROCP or other windswept enclaves.

Frankly the disaster that is Bay Street south of Charles could loosely be argued as an improvement over the provincial block buildings that dominated the strip pre condo boom, but this is Yorkville people. We can't allow these suburban developers to destroy the fabric of one of the few remaining interesting enclaves in this city. This isn't Yonge and Sheppard. Keep it classy.

This one should be stopped in its tracks.
 
Last edited:
The comparison is reasonable. The article certainly was not about the emergence of Williamsburg as a trendy neighborhood. Similar to the situation in Yorkville, the article considers the insertion of several tall buildings into an established lower-rise area, although you're looking at both more buildings and a larger area in the Williamsburg case.

The 1 Yorkville plan is still being worked on. We do not yet know the finer details of the ground realm, not the final configuration of the fins. Despite the registrations being taken on this project, it's still early days on this one.

42
 
interchange42 said:
The comparison is reasonable. The article certainly was not about the emergence of Williamsburg as a trendy neighborhood. Similar to the situation in Yorkville, the article considers the insertion of several tall buildings into an established lower-rise area, although you're looking at both more buildings and a larger area in the Williamsburg.
42
Click to expand...

The recent emergence of Williamsburg as a trendy area is a direct cause of the desire for developers to increase the density there.

I'm not opposed to a tall building here. I'm opposed to a:

1. Building larger than 18 yorkville
2. Building that doesn't increase the public realm space
3. Bland design that insults the heritage component
4. Anything that remotely resembles what Blazis has done so far

If this is truly such a work in progress they shouldn't be allowed to market it. We should have tighter restrictions.
 
Developers of all stripes bring works-in-progress to the market here all the time. Take Great Gulf and their Yonge + Rich project. It's dealing with similar complaints from some who say that it's too tall, too tight to the heritage properties, and its plans are still in flux at the City, yet it's been marketed for many months now.

I'm not saying that I agree with the criticisms regarding marketing, architecture, any of it, either way, I'm just saying that marketing at this stage is by no means something out of the ordinary.

42
 
Last edited:
interchange42 said:
Developers of all stripes bring works-in-progress to the market here all the time. Take Great Gulf and their Yonge + Rich project. It's dealing with similar complaints from some who say that it's too tall, too tight to the heritage properties, and it's plans are still in flux at the City, yet it's been marketing for many months now.

I'm not saying that I agree with the criticisms regarding marketing, architecture, any of it, either way, I'm just saying that marketing at this stage is by no means something out of the ordinary.

42
Click to expand...

Yonge + Rich should be shot down on the name alone. It's an absurd play on words. I suppose anyone who is foolish enough to buy a unit in a building with such a name deserves the financial thrashing that will come their way.

I'm not singling out Plazis here. I'm merely highlighting the fault in the policy that allows developers to play this game of bait & switch that ultimately falls on taxpayers and agencies to contend with when things don't pan out for them.
 
That's good, but sometimes residents can come up with their own name that's distinctive and better than the marketing name. Village by High Park in the Junction, for instance, was rechristened Heintzman Place. It commemorates the Heintzman piano factory that stood on the site before the condo--a major industry that helped build up the neighbourhood.
 
Tying their money up for a period is the only risk they take, and they have to judge whether or not they can afford to do that.

To be clear though, there is a distinction to be made between marketing and selling, and there are no buyers here yet as 1 Yorkville is only being marketed at the moment, not sold yet. Online registrations with questions for those interested in the building help the design team know what people are looking for at this location.

In regards to when selling can begin, good luck on new legislation that would prevent a developer from selling before approvals are attained. Which approvals would be required and which wouldn't? It's a multi-stage process.

I'm more on the side of buyer beware: the potential purchaser should be responsible for checking what stage the building is at in the planning process. If they are comfortable signing a purchase agreement before the building has zoning approval, fine. If they'd prefer to wait until City Council has passed whatever amendments are necessary fine. Others might want to know that the building has met 80% sales targets and will get bank financing (and is going ahead for certain), while others might want to see construction already underway.

Sales agents are not always well informed about the building's status at the City, but the planning department (or UrbanToronto in many cases) can be the source of that info. Of course, a purchaser should hire a lawyer to review the purchase agreement, and a determination of the building's status should be made at that time.

Anyone with the wherewithal for a purchase like this should take the responsibility upon themselves to get a full picture of the situation.

42
 
interchange42 said:
Tying their money up for a period is the only risk they take, and they have to judge whether or not they can afford to do that.

42
Click to expand...

You seem to be misinformed of the pre sale process. When a purchaser buys a unit they are contractually obligated to complete the transaction. They are 100% locked in and most developers will sue to force them to close if they don't.

The risk is actually enormous, hence a developers reputations should be a paramount consideration for any purchaser as he's on the look for that unit barring some gross negligence on part of developer.
 
Last edited:
CN Tower said:
You seem to be misinformed of the pre sale process. When a purchaser buys a unit they are contractually obligated to complete the transaction. They are 100% locked in and most developers will sue to force them to close if they don't.

The risk is actually enormous, hence a developers reputations should be a paramount consideration for any purchaser as he's on the look for that unit barring some gross negligence on part of developer.
Click to expand...

You have misunderstood my intent. By saying that "Tying their money up for a period is the only risk they take, and they have to judge whether or not they can afford to do that", I'm saying a purchaser's downpayment is tied up while they wait for the building to go ahead. If it does not go ahead, they get their money back. If it goes ahead, of course they are obligated to complete the transaction.

42
 
There was a rendering of this project in the most recent Condo Guide which I haven't been able to find anywhere else. It an aerial view of the top of the tower. The metallic columns extend up over the roof like a parapet.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top