HousingNowTO

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Sep 16, 2020
Messages
431
Reaction score
1,174
City:
Toronto
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.
I don't consider new housing for thousands of people "lost forever"... new housing is a BENEFIT for the City.
 

Amare

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Feb 4, 2015
Messages
4,175
Reaction score
5,831
I don't consider new housing for thousands of people "lost forever"... new housing is a BENEFIT for the City.
I was referring to losing employment land directly, not residential zoned property.

Of course new housing is a benefit for the city.
 

daniel_kryz

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Mar 10, 2020
Messages
346
Reaction score
529
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.
Why would an MZO be appropriate if the Unilever Precinct Secondary Plan already allows for very high densities?
 

daniel_kryz

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Mar 10, 2020
Messages
346
Reaction score
529
Needs to allow the Housing and the Transit node, which was not in the Unilever Precinct Secondary Plan.
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.
 

torontologist

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Dec 9, 2013
Messages
552
Reaction score
473
Why would an MZO be appropriate if the Unilever Precinct Secondary Plan already allows for very high densities?
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.
 

daniel_kryz

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Mar 10, 2020
Messages
346
Reaction score
529
All true. I guess this does fall under the traditional use of MZOs, but they better go through the other planning processes.
 

Koops65

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jan 31, 2018
Messages
1,542
Reaction score
4,647
City:
Toronto
Here is the view from the observation deck of the CN Tower:

Toronto Model 11-20-21 East Harbour.png
 

HousingNowTO

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Sep 16, 2020
Messages
431
Reaction score
1,174
City:
Toronto
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 !
This is where my "philistine temperament" kicks in ---- Builds are for LIVING IN more than they are for LOOKING AT... 😐
 

Northern Light

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
May 20, 2007
Messages
16,579
Reaction score
35,399
This is where my "philistine temperament" kicks in ---- Builds are for LIVING IN more than they are for LOOKING AT... 😐

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.
 

condovo

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Dec 2, 2007
Messages
3,411
Reaction score
5,565
^^^ 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:

Bjays92

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jan 9, 2020
Messages
891
Reaction score
2,486
^^^ 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.
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.
 

Top