The tower looks fine but the base is 1980s-1990s-suburban office awful. Facadectomy please! (or use something other than precast/stone panels)
 
Last edited:
Mongo said:
I always have to laugh at some of these over-the-top reviews of a new proposal. Anything short of Burj Khalifa or Sydney Opera House is sneered at, as being "too dull". A developer would soon go broke if they tried to have every building be a world-class, iconic (and super-expensive to build) landmark -- they have to keep construction costs low enough to make an actual profit on what ordinary people can afford. Given that very real constraint, this is a fine design.
Click to expand...

There is a spectrum of radicalism, and on that spectrum a whole lot of space between the buildings you named and the pseudo-edgy tower that this proposal depicts. I'd say that your reaction to my review is as "over the top" as you say my review is. I'm not asking for every building to be a Ghery or an Ingels. And I'm aware of the fiscal restrictions that many developments are confined by. But those restrictions don't have to make a boring looking building - whose boringness is only emphasized by the lame slanted element that tries to make it not boring. You know those houses that have an opulent stone facade while the rest is unadorned stucco? That's terrible because it's so clearly bullshit. This tower reminds me of that. It just strikes me as cheap design rhetoric.
 
Last edited:
ganjavih said:
You're not alone or a freak. There's not only the historical significance, but it's important to remember the most vibrant streets in cities around the world are lined with old narrow lowrise buildings. This is virtually universal. We already have a bland, sterile street lined with concrete and glass towers a block away on Bay... I don't see the purpose of turning Yonge St into that. And then there's the Mirvish/Gehry plan to transform a pleasant, urban stretch of King West lined with handsome century buildings into a jumbled mess that's anything but urban. But, alas, this is a place where the almighty dollar has more influence that any urban-minded city planner does.
Click to expand...

You Bring up very good points but This is a tired section of Yonge st (east side) - and although we'd all like to harken back to the days of head shops, porno shops, drug dealers, arcades, and that 80's feel times are changing. I wish the arcades would come back myself! Yonge Street is slowly being transformed and the planners are doing a great job in regulating and managing it. Frankly Toronto is receiving 100,000 new people per year - how will they be accommodated? Where better to build density then on the TTC line. We need to measure the past, present, and future, and the dollar and come up with something that will work for most of the people as well as maintain the current pedestrian landscape or make it better. Does anyone have any ideas other than keeping these old crappy building? Pray do share
 
Yea simple ... Toronto is receiving no where near 100K a year .... that's the entire GTA and by far and large most of those 100K don't settle in the 416.
 
urbandreamer said:
They always hype how many ppl come here. But how many leave? Ppl die you know.
Click to expand...

They're saying that the city nets 20k a year. Deaths are worked into that. Births + Immigration - Deaths = around 20,000 new citizens per annum.
 
I don't understand why many people can't accept the fact that Yonge st, Toronto's backbone street under which the main subway line runs, will go high rise and won't be a low rise st lined by cute 2-3 story Victorian houses forever. It won't be economical or even pretty.

When tourists come to see the current Yonge st between Gerrard and Bloor, the usual response is not "wow, Toronto preserves its heritage so well！" but rather "how come this street is so gritty"? The city can preserve the old Victorian houses all it wants in other parts of the city, especially outside downtown, but Yonge st is the last place. Preserving heritage is not the only concern, not even the first concern when it comes to planning a city. How to make it as efficient and livable as possible is far more important. It is selfish to expect to see the same old Yonge st year after year just because you feel like it while depriving other residents and large business the right to live and operate right on it.

Not saying design and street life is not important, but downtown Yonge will transform into someone unrecognizable in a matter of 5-6 years no matter you like it or not. In 20 years, it probably will look like a real commercial street of a major city. I agree that the city is doing a great job in achieving that. Cute mom pop candy stores? There are other places for them to survive. Rents will be too high then them. 2 story houses, the entire city literally has more of them than anything else.
 
Last edited:
balenciaga said:
When tourists come to see the current Yonge st between Gerrard and Bloor, the usual response is not "wow, Toronto preserves its heritage so well！" but rather "how come this street is so gritty"?
Click to expand...

How about the "I dig that it's so gritty, old Victorian storefronts and all" crowd?
 
Once again I must note that the Yonge subway is at capacity now, so the argument that building along the Yonge subway holds no water anymore. It's maxed out.
 
If I worked downtown and lived here I seriously doubt I would take the subway, but rather ride my bike, or take the Bay bus to avoid the subway congestion. If I was using the Yonge subway to go to say NYCC then try would be going against the flow of traffic and not affecting the overloaded direction.
 
Totally agree, I work at St Mikes hospital, live in Rosedale, it's much faster to cycle then trying to squeeze into a packed subway. Depending on the time of day, sometimes three or four trains will go by before I can finally squeeze into one, it's not only slow, but painfully uncomfortable. I can cycle to work in 10 minutes, barring sever weather that is, for those few days, I drive. I usually work 7-3, so traffic and/or parking is not an issue. From a cyclists point of view, I can tell you there are thousands more who cycle to work now, compared to, say, 10 years ago, one of the many benefits living close to work. I honestly think that is the way of the future, with the price of running a vehicle constantly increasing, and the crowds on the TTC, it's just going to become the preferred mode of transport even more, plus, it's good for you, I dropped 10 pounds in the first 4 months when I started cycling. One of the reasons so many big employers are setting up shop in the core is to attract the tens of thousands of potential employees now living downtown, it's a win win. As for the subway, it's bursting at the seams, and currently, cannot handle the rush hour crowd. If they do indeed construct the DTR line (downtown relief line) it would be a huge help. They say it's been made a priority, but even still, we're looking at many years before its in service, until then we just have to cope the best we can. Toronto is growing much faster then it's infrastructure can keep up with, if not corrected, I can see many leaving the city all together.
 
I think its great for people who live downtown to cycle or walk. But underlying these comments is the assumption that people who move downtown won't use the transit as much so hence its ok to put condo towers along Yonge Street without thinking of the infrastructure needs. However, not everyone can do that. Elderly people. Disabled people. I used to walk all the time until 3 years ago when I had surgery to remove a tumor from my leg and now I have limited mobility. I don't take the Yonge subway anymore at rushhour because I don't feel safe - its so crowded and its very easy to accidentally get pushed. I take the Bay Bus but it also very crowded in the morning. There shouldn't be any further condo development along Yonge Street until a downtown relief line is built because the Yonge Subway is over capacity as it as (as well as the Bay Bus route). I also agree with the other comments that Tourists would prefer to see the unique grittiness of Yonge Street than a street that looks like other major street in the world filled with the same uninteresting chain stores, or drug stores or banks or dentists offices etc. Condos and retails simply do not work very well - at least I've seen very few evidence of it working well in Toronto. I also think heritage is important. I wish we had better policies that would encourage owners to take care of their properties. The Victorian row houses along Yonge could have been icon of Toronto architecture like NewYork City Brown Stones.
 
Well said marsh, I agree with everything you say. I have also had somewhat limited mobility since around summer of 2011 (when my regular photo updates pretty much stopped coming) so I rely much more on transit now. I regularly see rush hours on the Yonge & streetcar lines now and agree that until relief lines are built, probably at least 15 years away (I don't follow the transportation group that closely so I could be off base), the City should be slowing down development along here. Traffic gridlock, lack of bike lanes (now known as parking lanes on Sherbourne St.... FAIL) and packed subway trains is only going to continue to intensify before any relief (expanded local and regional transit) is on the horizon. I've given up trying to convince anyone of what we are losing on Yonge Street, so I won't even try (though I cannot completely guarantee that!).
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top