Approved. But why is something like this still a matter for the city to get involved in? Let the market determine use as long as it isn’t toxic. I thought that Ford would have straightened this out! And though I am no friend of the Tories I will say that there relaxation of outdated zoning inside existing built up areas was needed. Not even Seattle and Portland have gone as far.

www.thestar.com

Landmark Toronto office tower granted new life as residence after special exemption

The plan would see the former CPR building at Yonge and King streets house 127 condos along with retail and restaurant space on the lower levels.
www.thestar.com www.thestar.com
 
Last edited:
rdaner said:
Approved. But why is something like this still a matter for the city to get involved in? Let the market determine use as long as it isn’t toxic. I thought that Ford would have straightened this out!

www.thestar.com

Landmark Toronto office tower granted new life as residence after special exemption

The plan would see the former CPR building at Yonge and King streets house 127 condos along with retail and restaurant space on the lower levels.
www.thestar.com www.thestar.com
Click to expand...

The office space replacement policy is not only sensible and reasonable, it's essential to insure people have somewhere to work; generally, you can't afford somewhere to live if you don't work.

We don't want a downtown that's hollowed out of jobs, because it's easier to make money on residential.

Yes, reasonable conversions can and should be approved, as this one was; but the idea that the underlying policy should be scrapped entirely, or that our dim-witted Premier is the solution to anything, is completely and utterly preposterous.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Such passion for employment lands retention! lol I feel that regulation should guide features of overall space but leave the day-to-day running of how it is used to the people providing said space, much like they do in France. There the massing and look is often mandated but the famous units along Haussman’s boulevards change from residential to commercial/institutional according to the market and what is needed at the time and not what may be needed in the future which is really unknowable. And if there is a surge in office demand I am sure that developers will find locations to put newer offices that business actually wants.

One has only to look to the unfortunate cities to our south to see the result of trying to stop the subtle processes that shape the urban environment! Cleveland, anyone?
 
rdaner said:
Such passion for employment lands retention! lol I feel that regulation should guide features of overall space but leave the day-to-day running of how it is used to the people providing said space, much like they do in France. There the massing and look is often mandated but the famous units along Haussman’s boulevards change from residential to commercial/institutional according to the market and what is needed at the time and not what may be needed in the future which is really unknowable. And if there is a surge in office demand I am sure that developers will find locations to put newer offices that business actually wants.
Click to expand...

Perhaps, in discussing Paris, you would like to read their land use requirements:


Please begin on p.34

rdaner said:
One has only to look to the unfortunate cities to our south to see the result of trying to stop the subtle processes that shape the urban environment! Cleveland, anyone?
Click to expand...

U.S. rustbelt cities are not the way they are because of employment lands retention. Zero impact, none, nada, squat.

The issues are many and varied, but are largely attributable to large-scale de-industrialization, to 'white flight', to suburban sprawl, to smaller cities geographically with much smaller tax bases, and both racial and economic segregation, and finally to hugely subsidized expansion of the U.S. desert regions with water shipped hundreds of miles from source to allow for the explosive growth of Phoenix, Vegas, and much of L.A. as well.
 
Northern Light said:
Perhaps, in discussing Paris, you would like to read their land use requirements:


Please begin on p.34



U.S. rustbelt cities are not the way they are because of employment lands retention. Zero impact, none, nada, squat.

The issues are many and varied, but are largely attributable to large-scale de-industrialization, to 'white flight', to suburban sprawl, to smaller cities geographically with much smaller tax bases, and both racial and economic segregation, and finally to hugely subsidized expansion of the U.S. desert regions with water shipped hundreds of miles from source to allow for the explosive growth of Phoenix, Vegas, and much of L.A. as well.
Click to expand...
Thank you for the researched response and I should have been more specific in my comments. I was only referring to existing structures, such as 69 Yonge, that have a difficult time attracting and/or keeping tenants that are evidence of changing needs that some regulation will only exacerbate. Left in place for an extended period of time this can lead to absurd situations as is seen in Cleveland where immense tracts of industrial land and buildings outside the core is abandoned because, despite the most fervent wishes of government, industrial uses aren’t coming back and more profitable alternative uses are actively discouraged. Another example are abandoned Detroit office towers that have only recently been given permission to be converted with encouraging results. Freezing economic use to a particular structure/area did not destroy Great Lakes cities on its own but it was a contributing factor.

Another example is the case of 22 Leslie Street where the owner of a small 2 storey building surrounded by parking lots has had to apply to the city to change the designated use of a second floor room from office to retail. I can’t imagine why the city needs to be involved in this decision? Again if there is an increase in the demand for commercial then I am confident that developers will buy lower density structures to build. The financial costs to an urban area that is denied revenue from actual in-demand use due to the off chance another use may appear in the future are enormous.

As far as Paris goes the regulations seem to refer to keeping street-fronts for retail (good idea) and space for artisanal craftsmen affordable, neither of which applies to our topic at hand. There is zero saved industrial/commercial land inside The Periferique. If a land owner wants to save it for a specific use that is their money but regulation shouldn’t compel them to do so. Anyways the regulations seem to protect housing and not large concentrations of commercial space.

Once again we are talking at cross purposes as I only mentioned empty office towers and not the city’s employment lands strategy. City planners are not economists!
 
rdaner said:
There is zero saved industrial/commercial land inside The Periferique. If a land owner wants to save it for a specific use that is their money but regulation shouldn’t compel them to do so. Anyways the regulations seem to protect housing and not large concentrations of commercial space.
Click to expand...

This is not what the Paris Planning regime to which I linked states. You're skipping over some important stuff.

rdaner said:
Once again we are talking at cross purposes as I only mentioned empty office towers and not the city’s employment lands strategy. City planners are not economists!
Click to expand...

First off, the City approved this change. So I'm not sure what you're on about. The City will examine and approve, merit-based exceptions.

Second, office space is 'employment space', I'm not sure why you're trying to separate the two, but homes offer very few jobs/workplaces once built. Office, retail, service, industrial and institutional offer jobs.

It's very difficult to convert space back, including in most of Paris, by the way.

I'll leave it at that, let's get back to the topic at hand which is this property and not zoning rules for which we have a dedicated thread.
 
Just shared by Partisans Architects on IG
IMG_9748.jpeg
IMG_9749.jpeg
 
Hope this gets built. Partisans is a visionary firm that easily could have closed shop and found more business in NYC or LA where bold designs are more likely to be built, but they seem committed to Toronto and making the cityscape a little less dull. Would be nice for them to finally have a large-scale project built.
 
Northern Light said:
I'm happy for Partisans and all..............but this is not the first office to residential conversion in Toronto, its not even the second, third, fourth or fifth.

Hell, one of the early conversions is just to the east of the this site..
Click to expand...
Alex misrepresenting the truth for clout? Surely you jest...
 
goodcitywhenfinished said:
Hope this gets built. Partisans is a visionary firm that easily could have closed shop and found more business in NYC or LA where bold designs are more likely to be built, but they seem committed to Toronto and making the cityscape a little less dull. Would be nice for them to finally have a large-scale project built.
Click to expand...
Yikes...
 
Yikes would be if H&R turns this project over to Kirkor... >.<
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top