rdaner
Senior Member
^There will also be an lrt station to the north at Eglinton.
- Thread starter Northern Light
- Start date
Northern Light
Superstar
milkycontent
Active Member
49 Storeys here because the surrounding SFH neighbourhoods are untouchable. We'll keep building this tall at major intersections until we change the rules on streets like Balmoral, Farnham, Woodlawn, etc.
That being said, building looks good to me!
That being said, building looks good to me!
The Preservationist
Active Member
It pains me to see this one go.
jmi22
Active Member
You would think one of the ten commandments is 'though shall only build tall on the 1% of land with tall buildings already on it'. I get the economics behind operating office space anywhere but in the core right now is hard, but I can't help but feel in 10 years we will be building new office space in Midtown anyways. At the end of the day we will be out a fine example of mid century architecture and wasted a whole lot more labour/carbon/materials in the process
UtakataNoAnnex
Senior Member
If the main tenant is moving out, then what should be done with it when the office market is no longer really there? Letting it sit there and rot would also be a crime.
...don't get me wrong, I'm really not down with the design here. It feels like this should be two separate buildings. And the heritage retention is a joke if that. But doing nothing is not really viable option either.
nimby407
New Member
I'm a huge fan of the architectural design for this proposal, the building looks fantastic.
If you are not comfortable building new high-rise at a major intersection, where would you build?
Anyone suggesting to convert the existing office to residential doesn't understand that half the building area would end up in interior areas with no windows.
Those suggesting to leave the office building alone aren't the ones who have to carry the costs of a C+ office space until it leases for pennies on the dollar.
If you are not comfortable building new high-rise at a major intersection, where would you build?
Anyone suggesting to convert the existing office to residential doesn't understand that half the building area would end up in interior areas with no windows.
Those suggesting to leave the office building alone aren't the ones who have to carry the costs of a C+ office space until it leases for pennies on the dollar.
Midtown Hank
Active Member
I have very little faith that the building will end up anything like what the current depiction is. Those are pretty large south facing balconies for a 50 storey rental.
I think we all understand the economics of class B commercial buildings, but we can still appreciate the design/look of what exists there today. As for the appropriate height, I think 30 storey max would make sense for this location. There are a number of new builds very close to this proposal and they are all substantially lower. I also think the tallest builds should be closer to the Yonge line subway (where they are currently building very talls). Anyway, it is what it is. Experience tells me the city will likely oppose, they'll be negotiations, blah blah blah and a compromise will be reached at something even taller.
A Torontonian Now
Senior Member
Fair enough, but without the planning permission, these would be the two options available (slow release-up, or conversion of existing building to residential), less economic thought they may be than the proposal, and either of them is a better outcome from a planning perspective.
And I am on the record already stating that going large at this intersection is fine. Just not at the expense of existing large-scale building stock.
junctionist
Senior Member
Not only are they untouchable, but their owners complain about the heights of buildings on those slivers of land that can be developed on the edges of the SFH neighbourhoods. Heck, they've complained about retail being present in new buildings along St. Clair in the affluent areas that never had retail. Their complaining doesn't even serve their own interests very well. Everyone benefits from having stores and restaurants nearby, as well as the population base to support them.
maestro
Senior Member
NIMBYism doesn't work in Toronto. It's all just an anecdote.
Fitzrovia isn't proposing 49 storeys because of single family zoning restricts intensification. They are maxing value regardless if they build or not. I also don't see Fitzrovia proposing low rise 18 to 24 unit elevator buildings over 300 unit and higher towers if the single family zoning was changed to 1 to 2 FSI multi-family. Buying a house (and you'll need more than one) costs more than building a 3 storey, 18 unit, (or 4 storey, 24 unit) elevator building. That's also before upzoning raises the property values of the single family lots.
Fitzrovia isn't proposing 49 storeys because of single family zoning restricts intensification. They are maxing value regardless if they build or not. I also don't see Fitzrovia proposing low rise 18 to 24 unit elevator buildings over 300 unit and higher towers if the single family zoning was changed to 1 to 2 FSI multi-family. Buying a house (and you'll need more than one) costs more than building a 3 storey, 18 unit, (or 4 storey, 24 unit) elevator building. That's also before upzoning raises the property values of the single family lots.
jmi22
Active Member
Very cool story, this is however not how development plays out anywhere else in the world that does not restrict density to specific corridors. Tell Patrick Condon I said hi though.
Northern Light
Superstar
Again, we need to be clear here, Toronto is a relatively dense City..........denser than Berlin, more than twice as dense as Rome......
Toronto allows more density in more places than most places.
This is not an argument against thoughtful reforms, of which I have helped to make many happen.
But I strenuously object to the fiction that Toronto is comparatively restrictive........it is not.
torontologist
Active Member
Our incredibly complex, variable and prescriptive zoning regime is the definition of restrictive... just because high densities are able to happen in the small footprints where the City allows them does not mean it's an even-handed or comprehensive system. And it absolutely restricts opportunities to construct new buildings.
Berlin and Rome are more liveable than here precisely because they have a form-based, predictable "code", if you can call it that.
Northern Light
Superstar
We will have to disagree on this. Substantively zoning in many other major cities is far more restrictive and indeed prescriptive and often includes aesthetic requirements as well.
Just try to propose a 20-storey building in most of Paris......right.......you'd be laughed out the door.
You wouldn't do any better in most of Berlin or Rome or Madrid either.
Absolutely not!
First off.......I don't mean this disrespectfully, but have you been to Rome? They struggle to get the garbage picked up, transit is a mess, traffic is chaotic and large swathes of housing having no air conditioning and many don't have access to what we here would consider basic amenities.
I don't think I would even call much of Rome livable.
Berlin functions better...........but its housing affordability has much to do with it and that is the result of robust levels of public ownership of housing, a more generous welfare state, higher levels of unionizaiton,and lower levels of population growth.
Where the latter slipped under Merkel (brief, explosive population growth) the price of housing rose, and the livability deteriorated.
*******
All that said, we're again having a thread slip from the specific to the general and tangential, because the same tropes are brought up again and again, polluting yet another thread.
Last edited: