Koops65
Senior Member
Yes... go big or go home I say.
- Thread starter West End Boy
- Start date
- Status
Yes... go big or go home I say.
maestro
Senior Member
Character in the form of demographics is one thing. Inner city Toronto neighbourhoods have seen dynamic swings in demographics over the decades. The built form hasn't changed all that much. A skyline won't suddenly develop around Bloor and Dufferin to rival Bloor and Yorkville or the downtown core. It's far more likely those towers would stick out like sore thumb casting shadows on the existing neighbourhood in perpetuity. My local paper has a then and now section and I think you would be shocked that 95% of the time you can't tell 1920 apart from 2018.
Height doesn't tell you too much about a development. It's just a number. A slim 47 storey tower on a townhouse podium typical to Vancouver has very little in common with the full sized towers on substantial podiums proposed here.
I went through two housing shortage crises in the 1990s. One was in Europe caused by a distaste for modern elevator building over the traditional walk ups. The other was here in Toronto. Rental vacancies for over a decade hovered around 0%. Rental real estate vales stagnated so no new rental housing stock was built. Today, Rental real estate values are on the rise and we're in the midst of a rental boom however, the income from these properties remain secondary. The return on investment will be in the eventual sale of the property. There's no push to rent out units at prices the average Torontonian can afford. It can make more sense to leave a unit vacant than dropping the price. You can build a hundred 70 storey high rises around all subway stations and it still may not do anything for the "housing crunch"
"Go big or go home I say" attitude towards community development comes across as Trump level ignorance. It doesn't contribute anything to the discussion. I like tall towers too. I've made an effort educating myself that tall towers can adversely impact dense, urbanized neighbourhoods in many different ways. They aren't appropriate everywhere and a subway station nearby is not an excuse.
Suffice to say, the developer here will expect planning to respond to the high price paid. It's inevitable this block will end up grossly overbuilt.
Height doesn't tell you too much about a development. It's just a number. A slim 47 storey tower on a townhouse podium typical to Vancouver has very little in common with the full sized towers on substantial podiums proposed here.
I went through two housing shortage crises in the 1990s. One was in Europe caused by a distaste for modern elevator building over the traditional walk ups. The other was here in Toronto. Rental vacancies for over a decade hovered around 0%. Rental real estate vales stagnated so no new rental housing stock was built. Today, Rental real estate values are on the rise and we're in the midst of a rental boom however, the income from these properties remain secondary. The return on investment will be in the eventual sale of the property. There's no push to rent out units at prices the average Torontonian can afford. It can make more sense to leave a unit vacant than dropping the price. You can build a hundred 70 storey high rises around all subway stations and it still may not do anything for the "housing crunch"
"Go big or go home I say" attitude towards community development comes across as Trump level ignorance. It doesn't contribute anything to the discussion. I like tall towers too. I've made an effort educating myself that tall towers can adversely impact dense, urbanized neighbourhoods in many different ways. They aren't appropriate everywhere and a subway station nearby is not an excuse.
Suffice to say, the developer here will expect planning to respond to the high price paid. It's inevitable this block will end up grossly overbuilt.
Koops65
Senior Member
Perhaps I should have kept my opinion to myself... it seems some people here don't agree with me. That's too bad for them!
Automation Gallery
Superstar
Hey i'm with you, some people here just seem to like them short and stubby
Amare
Senior Member
You're more than welcome to share your opinion, but actually try and validate your opinions with some facts or reasoning. You cant just say "go big or go home" and just leave it at that and expect people to understand your point of view.
Give us a reason and maybe we might just see why you think the way you're thinking.
maestro
Senior Member
I like urbantoronto exactly for the different opinions and the interesting discussions that becomes of them. What you presented is that you like tall towers backed by hollow rhetoric. It's barely an opinion much less a counter argument to this proposal representing an overdevelopment of the site.
maestro
Senior Member
And you're infatuated by taller and taller. You have to appreciate all the pro and cons to like/ love it.
Koops65
Senior Member
Whenever I hear "It's too tall!" I have to shake my head at the absurdity of it. What are people afraid of? Shadows? Give me a freaking break. I like shadows as well. Sunlight makes me squint.
We're talking about city building here, and yes, changing the nature of neighborhoods too. By building my city model I have come to see how Toronto is literally growing, upwards and outwards. Downtown especially, but all over the rest of the city too. There are proposals for 150 metres+ at several locations outside of downtown now, and likely more to come. City Hall and developers are joining forces to build Toronto, one tower at a time. Some people and businesses will be displaced, that's part of the process.
What I'm talking about is happening, at multiple locations across the city. Being opposed to this growth isn't going to change the momentum, and saying it's too tall or too dense isn't going to cause developers to suddenly start proposing shorter towers.
We're talking about city building here, and yes, changing the nature of neighborhoods too. By building my city model I have come to see how Toronto is literally growing, upwards and outwards. Downtown especially, but all over the rest of the city too. There are proposals for 150 metres+ at several locations outside of downtown now, and likely more to come. City Hall and developers are joining forces to build Toronto, one tower at a time. Some people and businesses will be displaced, that's part of the process.
What I'm talking about is happening, at multiple locations across the city. Being opposed to this growth isn't going to change the momentum, and saying it's too tall or too dense isn't going to cause developers to suddenly start proposing shorter towers.
Koops65
Senior Member
By the way, here is my render of the site in question. I can see this low-rise area becoming more dense in the coming years, as more high-rises get proposed nearby, though probably none as tall as right at the intersection.
A Torontonian Now
Senior Member
I don't think this proposal represents overdevelopment of this node. The idea that going tall here is equivalent to going tall everywhere there is a subway stop isn't taking into account the context.
There are already two apartment towers in the immediate vicinity of the corner, and several others nearby.
We are talking about a location that is not far from downtown, and already feels very urban. It is 4.1 km away from Yonge and Bloor, according to Google Maps, slightly closer than Bloor is to Yonge & Eglinton (4.3 km), where there are plenty of towers, existing and under construction.
In addition to the subway, this location is well served for retail, both smaller-scale along Bloor and by proximity to Dufferin Mall, by proximity to a large park (Dufferin Grove), other transit (Dufferin bus) and not far from where the Harbord and Bloor bike lanes begin (although an extension of the latter would certainly be welcome).
In a more distant timeframe, Dufferin Mall may also see redevelopment. This also suggests that the location could become a more substantial node of taller buildings.
I think the context is right for towers at Dufferin, and it is not equivalent to 40 storey towers at Runneymede, Jane or Royal York, as has been suggested. Old Mill, which already has some towers and other apartments, may actually be another location that, in my opinion, could handle some height and certainly would benefit from additional density.
There are already two apartment towers in the immediate vicinity of the corner, and several others nearby.
We are talking about a location that is not far from downtown, and already feels very urban. It is 4.1 km away from Yonge and Bloor, according to Google Maps, slightly closer than Bloor is to Yonge & Eglinton (4.3 km), where there are plenty of towers, existing and under construction.
In addition to the subway, this location is well served for retail, both smaller-scale along Bloor and by proximity to Dufferin Mall, by proximity to a large park (Dufferin Grove), other transit (Dufferin bus) and not far from where the Harbord and Bloor bike lanes begin (although an extension of the latter would certainly be welcome).
In a more distant timeframe, Dufferin Mall may also see redevelopment. This also suggests that the location could become a more substantial node of taller buildings.
I think the context is right for towers at Dufferin, and it is not equivalent to 40 storey towers at Runneymede, Jane or Royal York, as has been suggested. Old Mill, which already has some towers and other apartments, may actually be another location that, in my opinion, could handle some height and certainly would benefit from additional density.
ponyboy
Active Member
It is uneconomic for developers to build missing middle, so they prefer to build towers. Since even modest developments have to go through a long series of hurdles and burdens, it makes sense to build as much as possible under a single approval. These large sites like Dufferin/Bloor or the Well are awesome opportunities to get a lot built relative to regulatory burden. Toronto is a strange place to have so much 2 story along major corridors for so long, and I don't think we should respect that as something to be preserved, when it is actually outdated and inappropriate for the city we've become. We need stronger incentives (and lower regulatory burden) encouraging the avenue midrise.
NeilV
Active Member
Can you explain what would be so terrible about 40 stories at Old Mill, Jane, or Runnymede? I honestly don't see anything wrong with that.
Amare
Senior Member
It would stick out like a massive cyst would on one's finger.
Take a casual stroll through one of those neighborhoods and once you're done try come back and tell me that 40 stories would be appropriate for any of those neighborhoods.
agoraflaneur
Active Member
I tend to agree with Amare.
The problem is: without decisive action by the city to streamline the development process for missing middle projects (e.g., as-of-right zoning on Avenues for acceptable densities, not the current uneconomic allotments; up-zoning or taxing under-utilized properties such as parking lots; releasing green P lots for development), there simply aren't enough missing middle sites to accommodate future growth. Even with those actions - and there may be more I am not thinking of - the amount of land locked up in single family zoning in this city is simply too large to allow for us to accommodate growth without going high. Not only that, fewer and fewer people are living in these single family-zoned properties.
So, great: 40 storeys might be out of context - even dramatically - but where else are these units going to go?
The problem is: without decisive action by the city to streamline the development process for missing middle projects (e.g., as-of-right zoning on Avenues for acceptable densities, not the current uneconomic allotments; up-zoning or taxing under-utilized properties such as parking lots; releasing green P lots for development), there simply aren't enough missing middle sites to accommodate future growth. Even with those actions - and there may be more I am not thinking of - the amount of land locked up in single family zoning in this city is simply too large to allow for us to accommodate growth without going high. Not only that, fewer and fewer people are living in these single family-zoned properties.
So, great: 40 storeys might be out of context - even dramatically - but where else are these units going to go?
Koops65
Senior Member
I am baffled by the suggestion that tall towers shouldn't be built next to mass transit. That flies in the face of everything I've heard of regarding city building principles...
- Status