milanista said:
What does 16 FAR? mean?

This is too much of a NIMBY town, some YIMBY is necessary these days. We can build skyscrapers next to highways like the 401 and the gardiner but we can't build towers next to major transit lines? What exactly are we encouraging here?
Click to expand...

milanista, elbow from the sky!

Welcome to the board.
 
This is too much of a NIMBY town, some YIMBY is necessary these days. We can build skyscrapers next to highways like the 401 and the gardiner but we can't build towers next to major transit lines? What exactly are we encouraging here?
Click to expand...


YIMBYs are obsessed over height and height is hardly an issue in Toronto. As you say, we're building towers all over the place. The only thing Toronto is apparently NIMBY about are quality midrises no matter how hard the planning department pushes for these high density but humanly scaled structures.

Scaborough, for example, has more 12+ storey builidngs than 5 to 11 storeys buildings. I just find that pathetic and suburban

FAR is the floor area ratio or the amount of storeys the building's density would occupy if it covered 100% of the property. Those beasts across the street have around a maximum FAR of 8 as the towers actually occupied very little (20%) of the enitre property. Same goes for the towers along the 401 and QEW.


I like this tower's design alot but it's totally inappropriate for the site and only serves to add onto the mistakes across the street. ( I guarrantee it won't be considered fashionalbe and pretty if built)
 
Last edited:
Ok fair enough, but isn't that mainly because the overall footprint of Giraffe is smaller? So are you arguing that it should be set back from the street, or gradually step back from the street as it goes up? Or shorter overall? Forgive me if i'm misinterpreting here.
I don't think it's fair to hold that against this development. They're just using a smaller plot of land than Crossways or many other developments around town.
I don't think I'm obsessed with height, it's not like I'm pining for a 400 footer here, but I absolutely do think 20 floors are appropriate given the location. It's not like homes back right up onto this development, the closest homes are on the north side of Edna or all the way over on Dorval.
The bottom line in my opinion is that this is an intersection of 2 of Toronto's deemed "avenues" and thats why the land has to be used accordingly. I've already touched upon the locations enviable transit access.
The fact of whether this tower is fashionable or pretty is subjective and not worth debating at all, but I think one does have to concede that it is different. The bar for design is set fairly low for the most part here, so different is, at the very least, respectable.
 
Yeah, either a smaller tower or a bigger plot with additional setbacks. It's not so much this specific development but the precedence it sets for other potential redevelopments in the area.
 
I remember reading the NIMBY site on this project. They said that density can be achieved through smaller mid-rise buildings. After all, Paris is dense and isn't a high-rise city. (They even mentioned Paris.) They seemed to have failed to realize that to achieve high-rise density through lower buildings, parts of their neighbourhood oh houses would probably have to be cleared for five storey buildings.
 
Interesting to note that a classic example of a "smaller mid-rise building" up the street--the Glen Lake--was a Pug(ly) loser a few years ago. (Though not that it's *that* bad--just reporting.)
 
adma said:
Interesting to note that a classic example of a "smaller mid-rise building" up the street--the Glen Lake--was a Pug(ly) loser a few years ago. (Though not that it's *that* bad--just reporting.)
Click to expand...

While I'm inclined to say "the pugs...who cares", the Glen Lake doesn't address the curve in the road, it has the terrible garage entrance in front, the "ye-olde" lighting and now also some generic Canadian Tire Victorian lighting installed by some of the ground floor units. I like to think we've made some improvements in the way residential buildings address the street since the Modernist era, but it's not evident here. It's not ugly with its red brick Modernism, but it misses easy opportunities for something better for little investment.
 
would love to see this building get built. I inquired and the units appear to be quite reasonably priced. My only concern would be the loud turning streetcars.
 
milanista said:
I desperately hope they're taking the presentation centre down. This thing needs to get started.
Click to expand...

I think they are just doing a paint job to look like a Giraffe. It looks kinda of neat better than aluminum siding anyways. Don't know if they got approval or not, I didn't get a notice or anything.

The stink is still the disruption to the TTC and location of the underground parking.
 
Automation Gallery said:
Come on Maggie you know thats all “nonsenseâ€..:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

I guess someone without ethics would say something like that. You don't even know the safety transportation system that the TTc is regulated by.

I'd love to sit in my house in south Parkdale and not go to community meetings to help mold the future vision of the community.

Like I said before move the garage entrance to Bloor street or just don't put in any underground parking like the Military library museum is doing on University. This is supposed to be a major transportation hub with GO and TTC.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top