[freshcutgrass]

This is condo whoring at its finest.

Even if that term existed (or made any sense), I would have a hard time believing this project represents it at its "finest". Whoring would need to involve some sort of compromising of principals or morals, and this project is first rate all around.

 

[neubilder]

Even if that term existed (or made any sense), I would have a hard time believing this project represents it at its "finest". Whoring would need to involve some sort of compromising of principals or morals, and this project is first rate all around.

Sounds like whoring to me too.

This proposal amounts to an eye-candy-clad-gallery being used as bait for a mega condo development at the cost of an entire block of good and significant historic buildings, - meanwhile Lamb had to fight to get half the height on an empty lot practically next door. This project sets many bad precedents and reveals Toronto's planning efforts to be a farce. A world-class Iconic supertall - even a set of them would be fantastic, but not like this and not here. This isn't how London's Shard got built. Toronto is bedazzled by this proposal but has primitive and incompetent mechanisms for controlling growth. This is Bilbao syndrome, and there is more to city building than Section 37.

 

[ponyboy]

the east tower, to be built first, is much more conservative than the others. I think the strategy by the developer is to go with this higher margin building first, and if the market does not support the more fanciful buildings, a lot of money is still made and the theatre stays. I don't have problems with height, but why do the towers need to be 80 floors? Mirvish probably bought this land for affordable prices, so the building height is more about increasing margins than paying for the building. I hope they price this building reasonably ($600 per sq ft range?) given the quickly deflating market.

 

[buildup]

Sounds like whoring to me too.

This proposal amounts to an eye-candy-clad-gallery being used as bait for a mega condo development at the cost of an entire block of good and significant historic buildings, - meanwhile Lamb had to fight to get half the height on an empty lot practically next door. This project sets many bad precedents and reveals Toronto's planning efforts to be a farce. A world-class Iconic supertall - even a set of them would be fantastic, but not like this and not here. This isn't how London's Shard got built. Toronto is bedazzled by this proposal but has primitive and incompetent mechanisms for controlling growth. This is Bilbao syndrome, and there is more to city building than Section 37.

This sort of response is aggravating. First of all "condo" is not an obscene word. Cities consist of residential, retail, commercial, instituional. This is good, not bad - although people have been complaining about too many caves and tents for thousands of years. Within the residential realm condo are considered most sustainable. It's the job of developer to build what people want. Its up to incompetent politicians and whiny voters to get the infrastructure costs raised and allocated. It shouldn't take longer for infrastructure to get built than the buildings that require them. It all needs to pay for itself - this is obvious.

Our downtown densities are not - are not - incredible. What is incredible is our slowness in getting supporting infrastructure in place. But don't blame developers, just get it done.

If you consider Gehry to be "eye-candy" that term could apply to any exceptional building. Everything is eye-candy - clothing, hot bodies, art, mountain vistas, nice cars. Are you offended by things that please the eye? Did you object as strenously to countless decidedly non-eye candy projects? If the very best you can do is to describe the building to be replaced is "good and significant" then I certainly won't miss them.

You'd think this was proposed for Davisville and Mount Pleasant when you say "but not this, not not here". Why not this, why not here?

 

[innsertnamehere]

the only thing people hate more than sprawl is intensification.

 

[ptbotrmpfn]

these are hardly ugly. just sayin!

 

[freshcutgrass]

Sounds like whoring to me too.

This proposal amounts to an eye-candy-clad-gallery being used as bait for a mega condo development at the cost of an entire block of good and significant historic buildings, - meanwhile Lamb had to fight to get half the height on an empty lot practically next door. This project sets many bad precedents and reveals Toronto's planning efforts to be a farce. A world-class Iconic supertall - even a set of them would be fantastic, but not like this and not here. This isn't how London's Shard got built. Toronto is bedazzled by this proposal but has primitive and incompetent mechanisms for controlling growth. This is Bilbao syndrome, and there is more to city building than Section 37.

Your response is just all hyperbole.

There are no significant historic buildings being lost as a result of this project.

I'm willing to bet Theatre Park's little 1000 sqm site isn't any less density than the Mirvish project...and it doesn't bring anything to the table other than...those dreaded condos you don't seem to like.

Of course this is EXACTLY where you build this sort of thing. It doesn't just improve the site it sits on by a huge margin....it's a game changer for the whole district.

As I've said....there's plenty of projects to bitch about. Why anybody would pick this as the one to pretend will bring down civilization as we know it, is beyond me. But hey....this is the city that elects Rob Fords.

 

[TrickyRicky]

"Within the residential realm condo are considered most sustainable."

I don't even know what this means? I'm not inherently against condos but we can agree that from the perspective of city history, condominiums ownership structures are relatively new on the scene, and as such still unproven in terms of their long-term impact and sustainability?

 

[buildup]

"Within the residential realm condo are considered most sustainable."

I don't even know what this means? I'm not inherently against condos but we can agree that from the perspective of city history, condominiums ownership structures are relatively new on the scene, and as such still unproven in terms of their long-term impact and sustainability?

I was referring to how many condo owners do not need to own cars, or even use public transit that often. In a condo your ceiling is someone else's floor, your wall is someone else's wall, garbage pick-up is one stop for the dump truck, no new roads need to be built, less farmland is paved over, less commuting - you know these things. I recently realized I'm driving my car less than once per month.

 

[E.B.]

the only thing people hate more than sprawl is intensification.

People hate change. sprawl, intensification, tall buildings, small buildings, modern buildings in old neigbourhood and old buildings in modern areas. and on and on.

 

[neubilder]

People hate change. sprawl, intensification, tall buildings, small buildings, modern buildings in old neigbourhood and old buildings in modern areas. and on and on.

I actually like everything in your list except sprawl. And the wasteful demolition of good buildings that enrich the city.

 

[Tewder]

I actually like everything in your list except sprawl. And the wasteful demolition of good buildings that enrich the city.

Yes, the idea that if we are not doing cartwheels of joy over the loss of the POW or over the loss of a lively, successfully urban block of old buildings (landmarks or no) then we are hyperbolic anti-development nimbys strikes me as a bit of a stretch. Aside from the issue of height (which I could care less about, personally) most people would endorse this plan whole-heartedly in many, many, many, other situations!

 

[buildup]

No has claimed there are no sacrifices here. We are merely acknowledging that in the real world you can't have it all, you must give up something to get another thing. In this case the "trade" is very, very favorable. Are you uncomfortable with making choices? Do yo actually prefer what is there to what is proposed??

 

[Big Daddy]

Sounds like whoring to me too.

This proposal amounts to an eye-candy-clad-gallery being used as bait for a mega condo development at the cost of an entire block of good and significant historic buildings, - meanwhile Lamb had to fight to get half the height on an empty lot practically next door. This project sets many bad precedents and reveals Toronto's planning efforts to be a farce...

OR perhaps they are sending a message to developers to bring more to the table, including better designs?

Mirvish is offering:

- Outstanding design by an internationally acclaimed architect,
- A free museum for the public,
- Space for local university,
- Park space

All in addition to what the city requires re: section 37.


I think he has raised the bar significantly and I salute him for this.

 

[Tewder]

No has claimed there are no sacrifices here. We are merely acknowledging that in the real world you can't have it all, you must give up something to get another thing. In this case the "trade" is very, very favorable. Are you uncomfortable with making choices? Do yo actually prefer what is there to what is proposed??

I don't know. I'm still sort of on the fence about it. My point only is that we shouldn't dismiss those who aren't on board - yet - as hyperbolic nimbys. It's not like they're anti-development at all, they are 'pro' the development that is already there.