civdis said:
Why is density an issue with residential buildings? Each floor only adds maybe 10 units and 20 or 30 residents at most. It's not like office space.
Click to expand...

I'm guessing density is a potential issue because the city's infrastructure has been struggling to keep pace with the tremendous surge of growth in recent years, especially with regard to the core and adjacent to key transit nodes. A lot of it is ancient and needs replacing. You can only add on to the existing load so much before things go bust. Residential loads on the hydro grid can be quite high - and the existing sewage system faces an uphill battle too. How many towers can you add on in the core before the strain to accommodate it becomes too great?

Not to paint too dire a picture, of course - but this is why city planning makes some sense.
 
Lenser said:
I'm guessing density is a potential issue because the city's infrastructure has been struggling to keep pace with the tremendous surge of growth in recent years, especially with regard to the core and adjacent to key transit nodes. A lot of it is ancient and needs replacing. You can only add on to the existing load so much before things go bust. Residential loads on the hydro grid can be quite high - and the existing sewage system faces an uphill battle too. How many towers can you add on in the core before the strain to accommodate it becomes too great?

Not to paint too dire a picture, of course - but this is why city planning makes some sense.
Click to expand...

Seems to be a problem Toronto is uniquely unequipped to solve. The whole idea of the greenbelt was to concentrate development in the Core. These buildings are still 5-8 years from full occupancy. Lets get started on the infra,
 
Same problem with public transit, really. Lack of political will and leadership to commit to long term, visionary projects. A chronic problem, where taxes are the perennial dirty word. Like we're mired in a culture of infantilism.
 
but this is why city planning makes some sense.
Click to expand...

Except the purpose of city planning is not to stifle growth to try and avoid infrastructure upgrading and taxes.

It's a job we pay them to do.

It's a very stupid game we have been playing....

We pretend that we can avoid taxes and have all the amenities we need, and politicians pretend they can accommodate these fantasies. Then we elect them.

Except we just end up paying more for less in the long run. Didn't the eglinton subway start construction 20 years ago?
 
Keesmaat is an amateur. She says bait & switch, when has the Mirvish family ever done that? Anyone offer an example?

Mirvish & Gehry aren't the low-life developers that she thinks they are. Why does everyone think they're bluffing and will negotiate down, when they have said they need the density to provide the public with the facilities.
 
buildup said:
I think, please confirm, she describe the design as "trite". From that point on she lost me, permanently.
Click to expand...
Yes. Whether one loves them or hates them, they are certainly not trite. I would rather the project be scrapped entirely than proceed at a greatly reduced height that appeases Her Lowness.
 
freshcutgrass said:
Except the purpose of city planning is not to stifle growth to try and avoid infrastructure upgrading and taxes.

It's a job we pay them to do.

It's a very stupid game we have been playing....

We pretend that we can avoid taxes and have all the amenities we need, and politicians pretend they can accommodate these fantasies. Then we elect them.

Except we just end up paying more for less in the long run. Didn't the eglinton subway start construction 20 years ago?
Click to expand...


To add: Toronto has fundamental funding issues, both political and structural. Councillors can squabble all they want about little hikes here or user fees there, but in the end it's peanuts (relatively speaking), and in no way adequate to cover the steadily accruing infrastructure problems. We do have to lay a lot of this at the feet of the province and the feds who have not been investing in this city and region the way is should be.
 
Lenser said:
Same problem with public transit, really. Lack of political will and leadership to commit to long term, visionary projects. A chronic problem, where taxes are the perennial dirty word. Like we're mired in a culture of infantilism.
Click to expand...

It's so silly to attach public transit to any one development, though. Of any development anywhere in the city, M-G residents are the least likely to drive or take transit to work.

I understand the current issues with the King car and Yonge subway, amongst other lines, but most of these riders are originating from outside the core city area.

Building or not building M-G will have absolutely no impact on the number of people who want to work and live in downtown Toronto.
 
AlvinofDiaspar said:
But if M+G creates a precedent for the area? Planning is rightly to be concerned about the impact of that.

AoD
Click to expand...


Actually WE have reason to be concerned. If planning can’t find a way to permit iconic, well designed and deserving projects to be built without allowing it to set precedent - then Toronto is doomed to total, permanent mediocrity. Other "world class" cities would not be consumed with worry about such a project, they would be sitting down with the developer and structuring and/or expanding their municipal contributions. Instead of thinking what we could achieve, we waste our time worrying about what horrible things can happen if the buildings are twenty stories taller than the prescribed norm.
 
AlvinofDiaspar said:
But if M+G creates a precedent for the area? Planning is rightly to be concerned about the impact of that.

AoD
Click to expand...

Then all the better!

People who live in the area will be diverted from living in other areas (e.g. WDL, LibVillage) where they'd be a much bigger strain on City infrastructure.

It's hugely misleading to talk about a single development in terms of weather it "creates" pressure on infrastructure. Buildings don't have babies, they can't create people.
 
Big Daddy said:
Actually WE have reason to be concerned. If planning can’t find a way to permit iconic, well designed and deserving projects to be built without allowing it to set precedent - then Toronto is doomed to total, permanent mediocrity. Other "world class" cities would not be consumed with worry about such a project, they would be sitting down with the developer and structuring and/or expanding their municipal contributions. Instead of thinking what we could achieve, we waste our time worrying about what horrible things can happen if the buildings are twenty stories taller than the prescribed norm.
Click to expand...

Are you sure? Other world class cities such as NYC and London (not to mention Paris, Tokyo, etc.) have far more notorious fights over zoning and heights than we do. Design is one aspect of concern - not the only one. Pray tell - what would you do when the next proponent comes along and ask for a building the same height without the high quality design and benefits offered by this project - what would you do, as a planner?

AoD
 
Big Daddy said:
Actually WE have reason to be concerned. If planning can’t find a way to permit iconic, well designed and deserving projects to be built without allowing it to set precedent - then Toronto is doomed to total, permanent mediocrity. Other "world class" cities would not be consumed with worry about such a project, they would be sitting down with the developer and structuring and/or expanding their municipal contributions. Instead of thinking what we could achieve, we waste our time worrying about what horrible things can happen if the buildings are twenty stories taller than the prescribed norm.
Click to expand...

+1

does anyone know if a gehry project has been built on-the-cheap or if he's been manipulated by a developer who said we'll build with quality and then not?
 
E.B.

The issue isn't that - but once you've rezoned the land to allow for a redevelopment of this scale, are there any mechanisms for the city to say, it's Gehry or else? The proponent is asking for a lot (unprecedented density rights, removal of heritage structures, etc) - I think it's prudent for the city to ask tough questions as well - not so much so to hinder this project as is, but to solicit the most watertight case for what's been sold as the vision.

AoD
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top