LMVDR said:
The mistake of putting a high rise apartment building amongst single family homes and a few mid rise buildings. The neighbourhood is better suited for mid rise buildings done appropriately. You could probably add a couple storeys to this building without too much distrurbace but not much more.

This proposal is so out of place here it's almost a joke. If you permit anything above a mid rise here the whole street is in jeopardy of becoming walled by towers. I know some of you probably salivate at the thought but I believe it would be a travesty.

Your little Twitter post is amusing. You're suggesting all those Uno Prii mid rises are preferable to low rise housing. Few would imagine as much today. Certainly along Spadina and St. George but the others are poor planning errors of another era.

And look at 100 Spadina. What did they fill that parking lot with? Hint: mid rise.
Click to expand...

While we're all piling on...

The fact that more people have been able to live in the area because of these buildings, not to mention their inherent architectural gravitas, means you're likely wrong here. You just don't have the votes, so to speak.

Also, the fact that you equate the delicate intensification of the Annex with the destruction wrought in places like St. Jamestown indicates to me that either you like painting with a broad brush, or you just don't understand how they're different.

LMVDR said:
You use a lot of words to say little of value. Weston has every right to his opinions as a local homeowner and taxpayer. His financial position is of little consequence.

No I wasn't looking for entitled. I use my words carefully. And yes a small building would work well here. Why don't you install a wall of mid rise buidlings from Avenue to Spadina on Prince Arthur? I'm sure that wouldn't have a negative affect either. (sarcasm if can't detect it)
Click to expand...

The second statement is invalidated by the first.
 
Last edited:
LMVDR said:
You use a lot of words to say little of value. Weston has every right to his opinions as a local homeowner and taxpayer. His financial position is of little consequence. I don't agree with him about Davenport but he has every right to comment.

No I wasn't looking for entitled. Again, you're trying to ignite class warfare, and you failed.
I use my words carefully. And yes a small building would work well here. Why don't you install a wall of mid rise buidlings from Avenue to Spadina on Prince Arthur? I'm sure that wouldn't have a negative affect either. (sarcasm if can't detect it)

And Prii's towers are quite striking I agree. I just don't approve of their placement.
Click to expand...

I would if I could. Problem is, Prince Arthur doesn't connect to Spadina. Besides, it already sort of is lined with mid rise buildings. Over the three blocks of Prince Arthur, there are 8 midrise to tall buildings (soon to be a 9th, I hope). The character of Prince Arthur is already far taller than 4 floors.

The site we are discussing here is neighbour to a 12 floor building to the west, a 19 storey building to the east, and two buildings of 12 storeys each to the south. 4 storeys strikes me as severely out of character in size - the true "appropriate" height is probably in the 12-20 storey range.
 
I'm totally lost with this conservation. Is this urbantoronto or skyscrapercity? It's the Annex! It's recognition among visitors and architectural history is more than deserving of some heritage protection from large scaled redevelopment and one off skyscrapers. There's plenty of room to built high rise and skyscrapers elsewhere. This proposal isn't at all comparable to any existing high rise in the Annex which are usually less than 40 metes in height.
 
maestro said:
I'm totally lost in this conservation. It's the Annex! It's recognition among visitors and architectural history is more than deserving of some heritage protection from large scaled redevelopment and one off skyscrapers. There's plenty of room to built high rise and skyscrapers elsewhere. This proposal isn't at all comparable to any existing high rise in the Annex which are usually less than 40 metes in height.
Click to expand...

May I direct you to the post a few pages back featuring the neighbours immediately to the west and east of this site?

img_6174-jpg.118642


img_6176-jpg.118644
 
I think most are in agreement that 29 floors is a little too aggressive. The argument is more so in the fact that this site is appropriate for far more than 4 floors. The sweet spot is probably between 12 and 20.
 
maestro said:
I'm totally lost with this conservation. Is this urbantoronto or skyscrapercity? It's the Annex! It's recognition among visitors and architectural history is more than deserving of some heritage protection from large scaled redevelopment and one off skyscrapers. There's plenty of room to built high rise and skyscrapers elsewhere. This proposal isn't at all comparable to any existing high rise in the Annex which are usually less than 40 metes in height.
Click to expand...

Way too logical for this crowd.
 
maestro said:
I'm totally lost with this conservation. Is this urbantoronto or skyscrapercity? It's the Annex! It's recognition among visitors and architectural history is more than deserving of some heritage protection from large scaled redevelopment and one off skyscrapers. There's plenty of room to built high rise and skyscrapers elsewhere. This proposal isn't at all comparable to any existing high rise in the Annex which are usually less than 40 metes in height.
Click to expand...

Except no one has make a reasonable connection on how this proposal will wreck what is. I keep hearing this will wreck the neighbourhood - but how, exactly, given it's location.

AoD
 
innsertnamehere said:
I would if I could. Problem is, Prince Arthur doesn't connect to Spadina. Besides, it already sort of is lined with mid rise buildings. Over the three blocks of Prince Arthur, there are 8 midrise to tall buildings (soon to be a 9th, I hope). The character of Prince Arthur is already far taller than 4 floors.

The site we are discussing here is neighbour to a 12 floor building to the west, a 19 storey building to the east, and two buildings of 12 storeys each to the south. 4 storeys strikes me as severely out of character in size - the true "appropriate" height is probably in the 12-20 storey range.
Click to expand...

Oh, I like this post -- I think we all actually agree: 4 storeys is out of character; it's much too short for the immediate area!

In fact, on this block, this is the only building less than 4 storeys tall.
 
The point is there are better sustainable options than a single family home or a skyscraping apartment building and the Annex happens to be home to many of those options.
 
AlvinofDiaspar said:
Except no one has make a reasonable connection on how this proposal will wreck what is. I keep hearing this will wreck the neighbourhood - but how, exactly, given it's location.

AoD
Click to expand...

It will cast long shadows and project an ominious presence over the neighbourhood but, no it won't wreck the neighbourhood without sisters and brothers. My comments were in response to the implied reasoning that the Annex should be redeveloped because the form of SFH is elitist and unsustainable. Nevermind that plenty of these homes are no longer staged for a single family.
 
maestro said:
It will cast long shadows and project an ominious presence over the neighbourhood but, no it won't wreck the neighbourhood without sisters and brother. My comments were in response to the implied reasoning that the Annex should be redeveloped because the form of SFH is elitist and unsustainable. Nevermind that plenty of these are no longer staged for a single family.
Click to expand...

Long shadows are a fact of life at the periphery of a growing core, and I am not sure why certain areas should be free from this circumstance while others aren't - especially when one takes into account the number of individuals that will be affected. Besides, this proposal doesn't create shadow of permanence - and dare I say, probably create less impact in sum to the slabs elsewhere in the Annex.

AoD
 
innsertnamehere said:
I think most are in agreement that 29 floors is a little too aggressive. The argument is more so in the fact that this site is appropriate for far more than 4 floors. The sweet spot is probably between 12 and 20.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the clarity. I'm in that camp (although 20 would be still on the high side given this proposal's taller than average floor heights.)
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top