[urbandreamer]

^Rubbish. This pocket surrounded by Dundas W/Bloor/Keele is one of Toronto's "hidden" gems. I would buy a house around here--the curving Indian Road/Crescent area is unique and the history of the street is fascinating. The Bloor strip here has massive potential to become a trendy "village." While normally I like Teeple, TAS had cheapened the design down enough that it would've sucked. Red brick 6-10 storey buildings belong on this strip, not concrete monstrosities. Giraffe needs to seek greener pastures around Bloor and Bedford. It would also look great in NYCC.

 

[MisterF]

The argument that the communities along Avenues should have to put up with any old unsuitable development foisted on them so the developers can make a profit versus face no development at all is ridiculous - a parking lot holds promise for the future, a community is condemned to put up with unsuitable buildings until they fall down. Where one developer saw potential, so too will others - hopefully ones with a different business model.
AmJ

Thank you. Some have been arguing that it's impossible to make money on anything less than 20 storeys, which is ridiculous. Cities all over the world build much lower than that, and they achieve transit-supportive densities and revitalize neighbourhoods doing it. While I'm not convinced one way or the other that a building this tall is suitable at this location, one thing is for sure: this proposal isn't necessary for the neighbourhood.

 

[casaguy]

The loss to your neighbourhood in real estate value and positive recognition is immense.

I wanted to say this earlier too. I don't think the residents really realize what they've done here.

It would be an even greater loss if this wasn't built - as is - somewhere else.

 

[picard102]

It would be an even greater loss if this wasn't built - as is - somewhere else.

I've been wishing this was somewhere other then Bloor and Dundas since I first saw it. Transit node aside, the area is kind of a hole.

 

[egotrippin]

I find the decision boggling considering that there are three towers at this intersection, one of them nearly 20 stories and the other two nearly 30 stories. Why can't the NIMBYs devote their time (which always seems endless, don't these people have jobs/lives) to fighting architectural mediocrity rather than arbitrarily fighting building heights without discretion. They've ruined this area's chance to get such a wonderful design for a long time I'm guessing. I hope they get stuck with some 8-10 story dud designed by Toronto's crappiest and cheapest firm. Ten stories of precast and EIFS!

This also brings to mind the less spectacular redesign of that St. Nicholas tower as well.

 

[adma]

Clearly you've never read any of my other posts, as I'm an artist myself (although I hate that term - too loaded). Those buildings looked to be pretty much dilapidated and while there were a few signs of life they look like they're not in good shape. You'll note I didn't suggest them NOT being artists lofts, but just looking better - plus, add in some retail to bring the pedestrians north and integrate a cool area a bit more. I suggest this because they're exactly the type of building I'd love to live in!

Uh, it's no more "dilapidated" than the stuff on Sorauren south of Dundas was before it was condo/loft-i-fied. Not that the condo-loft-i-fication is bad for what it is, just that maybe you don't "get it" re what makes such old-school lofts (a diminishing quantity in Toronto) cherishable rather than eyesoreish. (Then again, if you're prone to saying "I'm no socialist", maybe you are to artists what the Entertainment District is to nightlife...)

 

[junctionist]

This location is valuable not because of the circa 1920's subdivision of detached and semidetached houses, but from proximity to some of the best transportation amenities: the subway, GO transit, streetcars, Bloor and Dundas Streets. That's why the height was acceptable.

We can have a very dense city comparable to many European and Asian cities with a low-rise and midrise built-form, but not if most of the land is taken up by detached or semi-detached two storey houses with front and backyards.

 

[AnnetteMeetsJane]

We can have a very dense city comparable to many European and Asian cities with a low-rise and midrise built-form, but not if most of the land is taken up by detached or semi-detached two storey houses with front and backyards.

There are many ways for an urban area to densify, and they don't all involve building rough-shod over established communities. If you walked down the street my sister lives in South London it would look much like a street in The Annex. The difference is that it is densly populated with three families living in each late Victorian terrace house. The back and frontyard are shared amenities used by all the residents of the property. No one building dominates the street. No building claims more light and air than any other. The buildings are well maintained because the owners inhabit the building they live in (the smaller size of these buildings make them unattrative to speculators). The buildings are safer because everyone knows who should be on their property (and the property next door). People are respectful of their neighbours and keep the noise down because they have to look their neighbours in the eye the next morning. There is a lot to be said for housing on a human scale. These buildings have proven themselves sustainable, having stood for a 100+ years. (They are not perfect e.g. it is difficult to get strollers up the narrow stairs compared to the elevators in a modern building, they are not accessible to wheelchairs etc. etc.)

I see some of the same urbanisation processes that have worked in south London in the west end. You will find that many of the homes in the area around High Park have at least one family in the house and the basement is rented out. (This appears to be the case back to the period when they were built.) Quite a number of buildings, especially along Bloor and east of High Park have always been multiplexes. Dense DOES NOT always equal high.
There are places where height is acceptable to the community - downtown, NYCC etc. etc. and that is great (although I am dubious that all of these buildings are sustainable long term, but that is another thread). In other communities, buildings that are 10, 15 and 20 times the height of anything else in the area are unacceptable and an alternative means to densify will be found - densification is inevitable as the value of the land increases beyond the point where single families can afford a 25' by 140' lot.

Another developer will come along with another business plan for this corner. If it involves ten stories of precast and EIFS, then I am sure that the community will have a comment on that too... (I second the call for red brick.) I actually like Giraffe, and I hope that it does get built, but in a location where it will complement and contribute to the area. The planning process should be about getting the right building for the right site... Different areas of the city should have their own character. The Junction has a character and it is not for one developer to come in and an ride rough-shod over what is there.

 

[WestBender]

Dear AnnettemeetsJane,

assuming that your UT name isn't just a play on words and that you actually live at Annette and Jane, I'm wondering why you feel the need to weigh in on a building that isn't anywhere close to where you live? As someone who lives with 5 minutes of the site, I think it would have been an amazing addition to the area, even if it doesn't necessarily fit in with the other buildings.
Also, the argument that European cities such as London have density without height is flawed in the sense that these cities have many more subway lines and a much better public transit system than we do. We are forced into buidling density in a limited number of areas, as opposed to spreading it out.
Why build beautiful, environmentally friendly buildings when we'll always have the Crossways Mall, two used car lots, and abandoned buildings to look at.

 

[milanista]

Dear AnnettemeetsJane,

assuming that your UT name isn't just a play on words and that you actually live at Annette and Jane, I'm wondering why you feel the need to weigh in on a building that isn't anywhere close to where you live? As someone who lives with 5 minutes of the site, I think it would have been an amazing addition to the area, even if it doesn't necessarily fit in with the other buildings.
Also, the argument that European cities such as London have density without height is flawed in the sense that these cities have many more subway lines and a much better public transit system than we do. We are forced into buidling density in a limited number of areas, as opposed to spreading it out.
Why build beautiful, environmentally friendly buildings when we'll always have the Crossways Mall, two used car lots, and abandoned buildings to look at.

Thank your for sharing in my opinion

 

[Towered]

Sheer stupidity. Total lack of foresight. The neighbourhood gained nothing by rejecting this, except perpetuating its dreary, circa 1978 timewarp state. Nobody has so far brought a convincing argument as to why a 27 storey tower (sitting directly across the street from 3 other towers, including two 30 storey hulks) at what will be one of Toronto's major transit hubs within a decade is bad for the area, not to mention that the aesthetics of the cutting edge modern architecture would have single-handedly elevated the area out of its shabbiness and inspired more buildings of such quality to be proposed in the future.

Now that I think of it, why did 500 St. Clair get approved without a whiff of opposition or controversy? The parallels to Giraffe are striking - a tower of similar height and massing built in a LOWRISE, ESTABLISHED neighbourhood, right at the corner of Bathurst and St. Clair, one of the city's AVENUES, which also happens to be a fairly important transit node with a subway station very close and a major streetcar ROW. There's even a hideous 70's apartment block to the south, just like at Bloor and Dundas. Oh, the hypocrisy.

 

[Junction416]

Now that I think of it, why did 500 St. Clair get approved without a whiff of opposition or controversy? The parallels to Giraffe are striking - a tower of similar height and massing built in a LOWRISE, ESTABLISHED neighbourhood, right at the corner of Bathurst and St. Clair, one of the city's AVENUES, which also happens to be a fairly important transit node with a subway station very close and a major streetcar ROW. There's even a hideous 70's apartment block to the south, just like at Bloor and Dundas. Oh, the hypocrisy.

There is a very big difference in the Official Plan between 500 St. Clair and Dundas and Bloor. Bathurst and St. Clair is an established apartment neighbourhood and mixed use area, while Bloor and Dundas is a neighbourhood and mixed-use area. The St. Clair condo was far more in context with the long term plan and existing character of the neighbourhood than Bloor and Dundas. You can see for yourself on the attachment.

 

[drum118]

Time to bulldoze the WHOLE area as it calling out for development now.

Maybe TAS will talk to TTC about building over the station and allowing a larger development to take place.

Sorry the NIMBY are too blind as well Perks to see what this area can look like with good density and development.

Time that each household pickup the real cost for maintaining the street, water/sewer line, etc to see what it means it will cost them to have that low density life style they want. Most could never afford it in the first place.

Then they will think twice about having more density to reduce their cost of maintaining their life style cost.

 

[grey]

The argument that the communities along Avenues should have to put up with any old unsuitable development foisted on them so the developers can make a profit versus face no development at all is ridiculous - a parking lot holds promise for the future, a community is condemned to put up with unsuitable buildings until they fall down. Where one developer saw potential, so too will others - hopefully ones with a different business model.
AmJ

Let's say this lot is worth somewhere in the ballpark of $20M (no idea how far off I am).

The way I see it, as a developer, you have one of three options (fair warning: gross oversimplification ahead):

1) Build tall: divide the cost per square foot into many modest, affordable units. This works out to around 200 units, which means the building is over 20 stories high.

Result: the City rejects your proposal because it doesn't fit the context or density limits of the neighbourhood. You take it to the OMB, which flips a coin and sides with the City. The mob of drooling, idiot NIMBYs holding torches and pitchforks outside your door heads to the local sports bar to celebrate.

2) Build luxury: divide the cost per square feet into a few large units starting at around $1.5M. Make the finishes really nice so that wealthy people will buy here.

Result: The bank loan officer laughs at you and rejects your proposal. Only urbandreamer would consider spending that much for a unit in this location, and he would rather be homeless than live in a condo.

3) Hold onto the property (which remains a parking lot) for a few decades until: a) the City changes their density requirements making proposal #1 possible, or b) someone strikes oil nearby so that option #2 becomes possible.

Result: You get sick of waiting and sell the land to another developer, who waits for the City to get on the provincial government's bad side (a weekly occurance) in some unrelated matter (say, TTC funding) and quickly takes option #1 to the OMB (only with a much uglier design) and wins. Congrats, you now have a very tall and ugly blight on what should be an important intersection and the neighbourhood never emerges from its 1970s time capsule. Occurence of rusty car parts on front lawns and porch sofas increases tenfold.

 

[milanista]

Let's say this lot is worth somewhere in the ballpark of $20M (no idea how far off I am).

The way I see it, as a developer, you have one of three options (fair warning: gross oversimplification ahead):

1) Build tall: divide the cost per square foot into many modest, affordable units. This works out to around 200 units, which means the building is over 20 stories high.

Result: the City rejects your proposal because it doesn't fit the context or density limits of the neighbourhood. You take it to the OMB, which flips a coin and sides with the City. The mob of drooling, idiot NIMBYs holding torches and pitchforks outside your door heads to the local sports bar to celebrate.

2) Build luxury: divide the cost per square feet into a few large units starting at around $1.5M. Make the finishes really nice so that wealthy people will buy here.

Result: The bank loan officer laughs at you and rejects your proposal. Only urbandreamer would consider spending that much for a unit in this location, and he would rather be homeless than live in a condo.

3) Hold onto the property (which remains a parking lot) for a few decades until: a) the City changes their density requirements making proposal #1 possible, or b) someone strikes oil nearby so that option #2 becomes possible.

Result: You get sick of waiting and sell the land to another developer, who waits for the City to get on the provincial government's bad side (a weekly occurance) in some unrelated matter (say, TTC funding) and quickly takes option #1 to the OMB (only with a much uglier design) and wins. Congrats, you now have a very tall and ugly blight on what should be an important intersection and the neighbourhood never emerges from its 1970s time capsule. Occurence of rusty car parts on front lawns and porch sofas increases tenfold.

Well done friend lol. Fantastic.
If you care to look at a few of my more recent posts in this thread you'll quickly notice that we just made identical points lol.
Thanks for the support. I'm glad to see that not everyone is delirious enough to think that any old developer can just plunk down a 10-15 storey building here out of the goodness of their hearts amd go bust because it fits in better.