Amare said:
Which in and of itself is another problem frankly. To me, if the city is going to convert employment land at any site, they've got to obtain much more benefits in return for that (way beyond the typical Section 37 stuff). It's prime land that once converted, they can never get back and is lost forever.
Click to expand...
I don't consider new housing for thousands of people "lost forever"... new housing is a BENEFIT for the City.
 
HousingNowTO said:
I don't consider new housing for thousands of people "lost forever"... new housing is a BENEFIT for the City.
Click to expand...
I was referring to losing employment land directly, not residential zoned property.

Of course new housing is a benefit for the city.
 
torontologist said:
Since this is the future site of an Ontario Line and GO RER station, an MZO would be appropriate.

Glad to see that any future plan will include mixed uses. An "employment zone" in this part of the city, abandoned at night, at this scale would be a scary place. Also.... we're in the middle of a housing crisis with an excess of office space proposed for the core. Some room for homes can be made here.
Click to expand...
Why would an MZO be appropriate if the Unilever Precinct Secondary Plan already allows for very high densities?
 
daniel_kryz said:
Why would an MZO be appropriate if the Unilever Precinct Secondary Plan already allows for very high densities?
Click to expand...
Needs to allow the Housing and the Transit node, which was not in the Unilever Precinct Secondary Plan.
 
HousingNowTO said:
Needs to allow the Housing and the Transit node, which was not in the Unilever Precinct Secondary Plan.
Click to expand...
I can see why it's needed to allow for residential units, but the transit node was already included in the sec plan. It didn't anticipate a subway station, but it did plan for this transit hub. At the same time, I'm concerned that the massing is way too flat and undifferentiated, which could by itself create a very typical-looking business district.
 
daniel_kryz said:
Why would an MZO be appropriate if the Unilever Precinct Secondary Plan already allows for very high densities?
Click to expand...
As others have said, it needs to be updated to include the current iteration of the transit node concept and TOD/TOC elements, and the fastest way to do that is an MZO. It may offer more certainty to the government's private sector partners that are partially paying for the new transit infrastructure. It may allow for faster development of East Harbour. Considering there is significant provincial/public interest here in getting this done, it would fall under the "traditional" conditions that would justify an MZO.
 
Permitting residential also needs it as otherwise they need to go through the Municipal Comprehensive Review process to convert the employment land which takes years.
 
All true. I guess this does fall under the traditional use of MZOs, but they better go through the other planning processes.
 
Here is the view from the observation deck of the CN Tower:

Toronto Model 11-20-21 East Harbour.png
 
cd concept said:
I love your work Koop's! But I don't enjoy looking at the new East Harbour rendering proposal it too cluttered and basically at the same height eyesore !
Click to expand...
This is where my "philistine temperament" kicks in ---- Builds are for LIVING IN more than they are for LOOKING AT... 😐
 
HousingNowTO said:
This is where my "philistine temperament" kicks in ---- Builds are for LIVING IN more than they are for LOOKING AT... 😐
Click to expand...

But they will be looked at.......

There really is no reason not to build in an aesthetically pleasing manner, it can be done without excessive cost.

It's important to consider not merely living, but the quality of life; and aesthetics are among the luxuries we all enjoy; including those of modest means; though it needs to be said the majority of space in
this development will not be serving the lower-income market, in either its residential or commercial components.
 
^^^ I tend to agree but I wouldn't describe aesthetics as a luxury. They're a necessity. Aesthetics is / are how 99% of the public interfaces with a given building. In other words, they do so by looking, not by inhabiting. Both are essential design considerations.

Too often we fall into the trap of thinking of aesthetics as a luxury, a frill that can be cut. Nope.
 
Last edited:
condovo said:
^^^ I tend to agree but I wouldn't describe aesthetics as a luxury. They're a necessity. Aesthetics is / are how 99% of the public interfaces with a given building. In other words, they do so by looking, not by inhabiting. Both are essential design considerations.

Too often we fall into the trap of thinking of aesthetics as a luxury, a frill that can be cut. Nope.
Click to expand...
To build on this. It's why so many people prefer old secluded Victorian era houses or the likes as their dream home, over a townhouse or duplex.

The interior could be nicer with better amenities in the townhouse but they'd still prefer a Victorian house tucked away where no one else can see. Exterior aesthetics are a huge factor in buildings and unfortunately even the assumptions we make about who lives there.

That said I dont worry much about how these buildings will look. They'll be fine, it's just the tabletop that's the issue at the moment and it was just mentioned how the city has already pointed that out.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top