[stjames2queenwest]

I was hoping it was sarcasm. But honestly all but the 2 minutes longer in line for pizza sounded like things people would say. Haha.

I definitely see the risk of too much retail here and things being a big flop and then a big mess, but I think a little scaling back and perhaps a significant cut in the most western tower's height (so the three appear more like a family with a young child rather than a family with a teenager) But if queen and parliament get a stop on the relief line which it seems it will I really don't see this being a flop.

I'd also cut the podium down a little and add some rental or some below market units here, maybe do something with artscape. This should really be something that can improve the neighbourhood.

 

[ksun]

The DRP hit the nail on the head calling this "essentially a shopping mall". The main problem with this proposal wasn't the height, but rather the way it (didn't) integrate with the surrounding urban fabric and existing heritage.

A shopping mall is 100 times better than the so called "urban fabric" that is there right now. Do we use the word" urban fabric" so loosely now? What urban fabric? Poverty? drugheads? Ill-maintained store fronts? Pee on the street corner? Homelessness? Yeah, more shopping is so much worse than those.

 

[ksun]

. I have long said that we need to be up around, at a bare minimum, 25 000 per square kilometer in the greater downtown area.

I don't have much to say I haven't said in other threads, but I do wish people would stop trying to limit density downtown. If you like low density neighbourhoods there are many cheaper, less dense places for you to go without leaving the city. All I want is one tiny section of the city that isn't stunted by narcissistic bureaucrats. Whenever I suggest this as a possible fate for our city, though, people seem to get vociferously indignant. Come to think of it, that is probably why I chose sarcasm.

Can't agree more. Downtown is tiny (17 sq km), hardly 3% of the city. Let it grow, let it be dense and vibrant. Let it be crowded, noisy, claustrophobic and interesting 24/7. If you guys want more "green space", more "breathing room", more "tranquility", there is the rest of 97% of the city, and a lot more in the rest of the GTA.

Do we even see how desperate the east side is in need of more retail and vibrancy? Do we honestly expect areas 10 minutes walking distance from city hall to remain a quiet, largely low rise residential area forever in downtown Toronto? And stop expecting downtown Toronto to be idyllic like Niagara-on-the-lake or downtown Oakville. We are not a city of 200,000, but 3 million (or 6M for the metro).

Don't waste the opportunities we have because we assume the past is always better.

 

[wolfewood]

^And once again you go off on everyone while implying your opinion is the only correct opinion. This development is definitely oversized and represents a threat to a low-income and precarious community (one of the last in downtown no less). Rather than actually examine the issue at hand, you simply insult those already living there and imply the rest of us want to live in Oakville because we think dropping 500'+ towers in a low-income neighbourhood isn't sound planning. And then you wonder why no one takes you seriously on this site...

 

[torontologist]

A shopping mall is 100 times better than the so called "urban fabric" that is there right now. Do we use the word" urban fabric" so loosely now? What urban fabric? Poverty? drugheads? Ill-maintained store fronts? Pee on the street corner? Homelessness? Yeah, more shopping is so much worse than those.

No, that's not what I was referring to, but it seems you want to write about some of the social realities of the area, so go ahead.

What I meant by "urban fabric" is that there are a number of smaller storefronts right now that face the street. These are much better for animating the area than an inward-looking shopping mall. They don't see much foot traffic at the moment, but a sensitive redevelopment of this site could fill in the gaps between these storefronts with more commercial space (and more residents), and the area would be much more vibrant. An enclosed shopping mall takes people off the sidewalk. If you are truly concerned about "drugheads", then the solution for that is more eyes on the street, not an insulated walkway full of Rexalls and Starbucks.

Keeping the old buildings would also be conducive to less-corporate tenants, and enhancing local heritage. But I get the feeling you are not interested in those factors.

 

[Stupidandshallow]

No, that's not what I was referring to, but it seems you want to write about some of the social realities of the area, so go ahead.

What I meant by "urban fabric" is that there are a number of smaller storefronts right now that face the street. These are much better for animating the area than an inward-looking shopping mall. They don't see much foot traffic at the moment, but a sensitive redevelopment of this site could fill in the gaps between these storefronts with more commercial space (and more residents), and the area would be much more vibrant. An enclosed shopping mall takes people off the sidewalk. If you are truly concerned about "drugheads", then the solution for that is more eyes on the street, not an insulated walkway full of Rexalls and Starbucks.

Keeping the old buildings would also be conducive to less-corporate tenants, and enhancing local heritage. But I get the feeling you are not interested in those factors.

The retail on the ground floor is not just an "inward-looking shopping mall". Stores front McFarrens Ln, Queen, Richmond and Ontario.

Regarding the DRP comments, I'm not entirely sure what's wrong with the public space being "essentially a shopping mall". I'm not generally impressed with the work of those on the panel... it would be interesting to know what they would rather see in not so vague language. I will wait for the minutes-- I'm particularly interested in this comment:

However, the Panel was not entirely satisfied with the presenters' inability to justify why a city centre was even necessary in this particular area in the first place, and questioned the appropriateness of the project, stating that it is a "self-centred" building and does not properly integrate with or respond to the local context

 

[stjames2queenwest]

I'd say a new subway line and what will obviously be a very popular station are a pretty good reason to justify a city centre.

 

[wolfewood]

I'd say a new subway line and what will obviously be a very popular station are a pretty good reason to justify a city centre.

Assuming it's built. Until a solid and funded DRL plan is in place (at minimum - we'd be safer waiting for construction to actually start in this city) the city and province shouldn't make plans presuming it'll exist.

 

[ksun]

^And once again you go off on everyone while implying your opinion is the only correct opinion. This development is definitely oversized and represents a threat to a low-income and precarious community (one of the last in downtown no less). Rather than actually examine the issue at hand, you simply insult those already living there and imply the rest of us want to live in Oakville because we think dropping 500'+ towers in a low-income neighbourhood isn't sound planning. And then you wonder why no one takes you seriously on this site...

I never claim my opinion is the only correct. And by your self-righteous conclusion in the last sentence it is you who think you have the only right opinion. Opinions are all subjective and neither of us should pretend we have the truth.

OK, tell me why an "oversized development" poses a threat to the low income community? The development is not driving anyone out as far as I know. And why is it considered "oversized"? Why don't think all the Moss Park apartments are "oversized" since they are taller and bigger (and uglier) and everything nearby? Are those "sound planning"? It is funny that we all pretend we prefer "mixed neighbourhood", then it turns out that it only means to put cheap housing among nicer ones, and when you put some market oriented development in a poor neighbourhood, all of a sudden we don't want "mixed neighbourhood" any more, it is all about exiting "urban fabric" etc etc and not disturbing the "precarious community", the usual stuff. Isn't it a bit hypocritical?

Downtown Queen East WILL become less affordable, especially when we are running out of developable land and a DRL might happen right there. Do you know why Dundas E and Queen E just started to receive so much attention and multiple proposals? It is called "the market". Like it or not, this area will not remain the same. The market will always prevail. And honestly it is not even healthy to have a predominantly poor neighbourhood with the poor living next door to other poor people. You think you are protecting them, when in fact they are stuck in a hopeless situation with no chance of ever getting out of it. "Easy access to service", no, that's NOT what they need. What they need is hope and opportunities, something to look up to, not continuous handout and "services".

 

[ProjectEnd]

I never claim my opinion is the only correct. And by your self-righteous conclusion in the last sentence it is you who think you have the only right opinion. Opinions are all subjective and neither of us should pretend we have the truth.

OK, tell me why an "oversized development" poses a threat to the low income community? The development is not driving anyone out as far as I know. And why is it considered "oversized"? Why don't think all the Moss Park apartments are "oversized" since they are taller and bigger (and uglier) and everything nearby? Are those "sound planning"? It is funny that we all pretend we prefer "mixed neighbourhood", then it turns out that it only means to put cheap housing among nicer ones, and when you put some market oriented development in a poor neighbourhood, all of a sudden we don't want "mixed neighbourhood" any more, it is all about exiting "urban fabric" etc etc and not disturbing the "precarious community", the usual stuff. Isn't it a bit hypocritical?

Downtown Queen East WILL become less affordable, especially when we are running out of developable land and a DRL might happen right there. Do you know why Dundas E and Queen E just started to receive so much attention and multiple proposals? It is called "the market". Like it or not, this area will not remain the same. The market will always prevail. And honestly it is not even healthy to have a predominantly poor neighbourhood with the poor living next door to other poor people. You think you are protecting them, when in fact they are stuck in a hopeless situation with no chance of ever getting out of it. "Easy access to service", no, that's NOT what they need. What they need is hope and opportunities, something to look up to, not continuous handout and "services".

There is SO much to dive into there but I'll just sample the low hanging fruit for now...

 

[Uptowner]

I was hoping it was sarcasm. But honestly all but the 2 minutes longer in line for pizza sounded like things people would say. Haha.

I agree with what you said, though it sounds like I am less concerned than you are about there being too much retail. I could be wrong, though, and the main thing I wanted to focus on was the fact that adding this many more people to the area in this space is not inherently bad. Getting the mix right is what is key for me.

Can't agree more. Downtown is tiny (17 sq km), hardly 3% of the city. Let it grow, let it be dense and vibrant. Let it be crowded, noisy, claustrophobic and interesting 24/7. If you guys want more "green space", more "breathing room", more "tranquility", there is the rest of 97% of the city, and a lot more in the rest of the GTA.

Thanks for being a constant voice on here in support of a signifcantly more vibrant downtown. We take a slightly different tact in our approach to addressing the issue stylistically, but we definitely agree on the large majority of what I would consider to be the key issues.

...This development is definitely oversized and represents a threat to a low-income and precarious community (one of the last in downtown no less). Rather than actually examine the issue at hand, you simply insult those already living there and imply the rest of us want to live in Oakville because we think dropping 500'+ towers in a low-income neighbourhood isn't sound planning...

I actually share many, if not all, of the concerns you do and probably in equl measure. I just don't see how the jump is made from adding signifacntly more density to this necessarily being a threat to low income renters. Couldn't this potentially create more subsidized housing in the area? Couldn't it, therefore, provide more places for low income people to live in the neighbourhood and be part of a solution to the housing problem? I have made this point before so forgive if I am repetitive, but surely there is an ideal mix of market and subsidized housing. If one accepts this premise then surely adding a larger number of market rate units allows, at least in theory, for more subsudized units to be built in an area while maintaining the ideal mix of housing types. Clearly the mix is up for debate. Once an opinion is formed collectively, though, it is up to our politicians (and the bureaucrats they hire) to enforce this ratio. If the argument is as I presented it then I do not quite get the logic of building fewer units.

If, however, people are concerned that the City cannot/will not do it in a large project why is it more likely they will ensure more such units are built in a smaller development? If I am missing something then please tell me. I don't want to be wrong any longer than I have to be and will very gladly change my mind. (I couldn't be more sincere in saying this.)

What I meant by "urban fabric" is that there are a number of smaller storefronts right now that face the street. These are much better for animating the area than an inward-looking shopping mall. They don't see much foot traffic at the moment, but a sensitive redevelopment of this site could fill in the gaps between these storefronts with more commercial space (and more residents), and the area would be much more vibrant. An enclosed shopping mall takes people off the sidewalk. If you are truly concerned about "drugheads", then the solution for that is more eyes on the street, not an insulated walkway full of Rexalls and Starbucks.

Keeping the old buildings would also be conducive to less-corporate tenants, and enhancing local heritage. But I get the feeling you are not interested in those factors.

I know this wasn't addressed to me but since I agree with your concerns I wanted to encourage this line of assessment. To me, these are all points can all be addressed through the planning system. If it turns out the "mall" concept is no good then I don't want it either. I have no strong view on it at this point but am looking forward to reading more views on the subject. If your argument is that the planning process is corrupted in the sense that developers can get away with being fairly unresponsive to planning concerns on matters such as this then, if that is true, that is a matter for concern. It wouldn't sway me on the density issue, though. In any case, that isn't a concern you have expressed here.

Interesting views so far, I'm looking forward to reading more.

 

[wolfewood]

@Uptowner In theory more supply = lower prices but this doesn't work with condos. The apartments and boarding houses this developments risks (through increased land values throughout the neighbourhood) cost far less to rent than the newly built condos would. I'm not sure if there are any units being rented in this development but we have seen boarding houses closed for others (I believe Grid at Jarvis and Dundas? Where the Tim Hortons was). If the marginal people living in this neighbourhood now could afford these condos, they wouldn't be living here at all. As well, there is a significant concentration of homeless shelters here (as the east end has historically been seen as a slum - dating to the pre-WWI era) and, while arguably that concentration is unfair, it exists. http://www.insidetoronto.com/news-s...-proposed-men-s-shelter-at-the-former-goodwi/ As articles like this one show, people aren't keen to have shelters in their neighbourhood. And, as we've seen in other neighbourhoods, the poor are gradually forced out. Hell, the city is already losing shelters in this part of town as part of the redevelopment of the George Street shelters. So this development would be plopping itself down in an already poor neighbourhood and we have some evidence that condos and gentrification don't solve poverty but simply push it elsewhere.

As a last point, it would make zero sense anyway for the developers in this city to increase supply until a glut of units became available and drove down the price. They make their money through selling units, not renting them. If we had tons of rental companies doing this, things might be marginally better because the increase in supply would create competition automatically (and though I'm not keen on super competitive economies, it would work better than the current condo investment system). The whole supply/demand argument re. condo supply in this city is incredibly simplistic and ignores a ton of variables (not least that land can't be a "normal" commodity, by virtue of its limited nature - especially in the urban core). The fact that many on this forum seem to relish the idea of pushing out the poor when they say that these developments are "good" for the neighbourhood is just a further annoyance for me.

 

[ksun]

Let the land realize its true economic value. When developers want to build an expensive condo, that means the land is hugely under-used currently and doesn't achieve the ideal social benefit. I thought we live in a free market? Why does the poor's need more important than everyone else's? Why do the poor have more rights to live here than everyone else?

We should let low income folks live here (although largely against market demand and supply), but not this many and to this extent. Downtown Toronto should not have a homeless shelter district. To think it is good to keep them forever with each other nearby is very short sighted. Maybe to "push them out" and mingle with other people is a good fresh start. They won't end up on the street. And it is probably better for everyone, including themselves for them to live a bit far from all the "services" where they can get free money so that they start to have an incentive to build their own life.

This is probably the first time in many years developers even dare touch this bad area, and instead of welcoming it, we get all sentimental as if keeping a neighbourhood that is primarily homeless, poor and mentally ill forever is a philanthropic action. And that's an "annoyance" for me.

 

[Lenser]

The neighbourhood is not primarily homeless, poor and mentality ill. It would seem to take a peculiar sort of mental deficiency to even characterize it as such.

This sentimental championing of Darwinian market demand and mystical incantations about the land itself allegedly aspiring to realize its true economic value is all part of a Draconian belief system which is drawn to overly simplistic extremes characterized by binary nodes - rich/poor, good/bad, old/new. Thankfully not everyone in this town subscribes to this stark, reductivist dogma.

The very notion of it being good to "push out" the poor "and mingle with other people-" well, where do you imagine they'll go? Some amorphous place which exists... elsewhere? Sounds pretty vague. And to think that, of all things, poor people need to mingle? It's the lack of mingling that holds them back? Just a tad condescending, methinks.

Back to the project itself. I'm fine with the density. I just don't like these towers as they appear in the latest rendering. Too similar in height. I'd like to see them vary in height and girth. And I'm not keen on the shared design language occurring near the tops of these towers - they seem a bit perfunctory and clunky.

 

[Stupidandshallow]

@Uptowner In theory more supply = lower prices but this doesn't work with condos. The apartments and boarding houses this developments risks (through increased land values throughout the neighbourhood) cost far less to rent than the newly built condos would. I'm not sure if there are any units being rented in this development but we have seen boarding houses closed for others (I believe Grid at Jarvis and Dundas? Where the Tim Hortons was)....

From my post a few pages back http://urbantoronto.ca/forum/thread...ment-arquitectonica.25157/page-7#post-1087574

From the supporting doc Planning & Urban Design Rationale:
Based on the analysis set out in our Housing Issues Report, which is attached as Appendix A to t his report, it is our opinion that Policy 3 .2.1(5) does not apply to the subject application, in that there are only two rental residential units currently on the site. The rental units at 90 Ontario Street are subject to leases that do not permit residential occupancy. In our opinion, illegal residential units do not reasonably fall within the definition of “rental housing” under the Official Plan.