TonyV said:
Why let it "depress" you? I don't think that City Hall is out of line in applying due process. Face it, it is a major change and a major change shouldn't be rubber-stamped. I love this proposal, but we do need to think of the potential stress on all services: transit especially.

See, I don't care at all for Adam Vaughan, and all the while I don't like many of the other players either, but at least some individuals are contributing something to the process by raising the issues. Transit is already a disaster along King.

I will say it now: I don't think the height killers will win the day on this one. I think you'll see minimum of 80 storeys at the end of the day, but all parties have to acknowledge that a huge transit catch-up will be necessary, and we need to see leadership on that issue.

I love the Mervish-Gehry proposal. Net, it would result in an influx of yet more people actually residing in downtown Toronto, and the architecture is something that appeals to me, starchitect or not. Many benefits have been offered along with this proposal, including a rework of Pecaut Square. This section of Toronto may become a landmark lure and that will catch a lot of folks off guard.
Click to expand...

Transit will not be instantly "changed" on the basis of one massive proposal. That said, the small number of parking spots proposed for these buildings suggests that the developer views transit and walking as the primary means of getting around. Either the Mirvish people believe that the city will magically respond to the density of their pretty building proposal, or are operating in a vacuum with respect to the number of other buildings going up in this part of the city. Given that this development is not isolated in the area, it will be given very careful consideration by city planning. As the proposal sets a new height limit for the King-Spadina area, there is no rubber-stamp precedent-guarantee at the OMB either, so the developer can't automatically count on that route of approval. Their first step is to then work with the councilor and the community.

If you were at the community consultation meetings a while back, you would have heard Mike Yen grandstanding on behalf of the recently revivified TEDRA. Mr. Yen, who ran against Adam Vaughan in a past election, wants the city to oppose all new development in the area at the OMB (and he supports the OMB, even though he appears to not understand how or why it operates, or that city planning is being chipped apart by that body). The head of the Condo Owners Association of Ontario (who also apparently lives in the area) has also used her position to petition against all new development. Those stances stand in opposition to Vaughan and city planning who have been faced with remote planning approvals made by the OMB, and the fact that development - redevelopment and reuse - is included in the Secondary Plan. Take a little time and speak with Vaughan; he is not anti-development - as he is so often characterized on this forum. He does, however, recognize the need for sound planning. He works with developers, negotiates on behalf of residents, and extracts goods for the community. Like all councilors, he is limited in what he can do. The OMB has shown that time and time again. Add to that, many residents are in favour of development, but we want to see reasonable development, and not mere grandstanding by either developers, residents or tall-tower advocates. This process is about city-building and not monument building.

Whether one loves the Mirvish proposal or not, there already has been a massive influx of people residing downtown. It's not like this hasn't already occurred. During those years, many residents have pushed back on developers, demanding more family-sized suites, more retail space, better heritage preservation and more office and commercial space so that the area does not become a vertical bedroom community occupied exclusively by singles. These things are supported by Vaughan as well. That Mirvish's proposal includes a new cultural venue to replace what he would be removing is also a good thing, but it doesn't automatically mean he should get excessive density or a right to build what he wants on the site. It is very likely he is aware of that.
 
gristle said:
If you were at the community consultation meetings a while back, you would have heard Mike Yen grandstanding on behalf of the recently revivified TEDRA. Mr. Yen, who ran against Adam Vaughan in a past election, wants the city to oppose all new development in the area at the OMB (and he supports the OMB, even though he appears to not understand how or why it operates, or that city planning is being chipped apart by that body). The head of the Condo Owners Association of Ontario (who also apparently lives in the area) has also used her position to petition against all new development.
Click to expand...

And somehow re my points about heritage being the paramount issue here, I can't see either Mr. Yen or Ms. COAoO being conversant on that level other than through NIMBY opportunism a la Humbertown.

Incidentally, re those of you concerned about how Gehry/Mirvish might take forever to see the light of day: keep in mind that the Guggenheim (FLW's in NYC, not Gehry's in Bilbao) was something like 15 years btw/conception and completion.
 
One proposal does not affect Toronto's infrastructure, not until the people actually move into the area. Each tower of his will likely hold about 1500-1600 people so that would mean 4500-5000 new people living in this area. And each tower will take 4-5 years to build. The city of Toronto has an infrastructure plan and is building more subways and ordering new streetcars, etc. It DOES have to do more though that's a given. Between 1 Yonge St, 1 York St, Mirvish, and Oxford ...that is over 25,000 new people that will be living downtown in just those projects alone. Considering the majority of these people will have no car, transit is a valued point that the city must address.
 
There is more than just the three Mirvish buildings. Depending on where you count from, there are nearly 20 buildings - either proposed, in sales or under construction - in that immediate area of King-Spadina. Even if the proposal does not go forward, it will be very dense in terms of population.
 
Assuming Toronto's population is destined to grow, and the Bloor-St Andrews-King-Danforth subway is happening what is the density concern? Many cities hve functioned very well with far greater densities.
 
Density is not the problem per se its increased density without proper infrastructure support - not just subways and transit which is a major problem already but, other services - water/sewage systems, electrical grids, hospitals, ambulances, fire, police, schools, and proper planning for green spaces and parks. We are building way beyond our capacity right now on all of these levels.
 
People gotta live somewhere. National Post: Downtown Toronto’s pace of population growth triples, outpacing suburbs’ as Echo Boomers flock towards urban centre: report

Toronto has reached a “substantial turning point” after five years of massive growth in the downtown core, says a new report that also raises questions about whether the localized condo and employment boom will be sustainable in the decades ahead.

The report by TD Economics, to be released Tuesday morning, cites a dramatic surge of young professionals into the core over the last five years.

The pace of population growth has tripled since the previous three census periods and — for the first time in decades — outpaced the suburbs.

“This is a turning point for the city,” report author Francis Fong said.

“I feel like we’ve hit critical mass and now we’re sort of on our way to becoming a city like New York or London.
Click to expand...
 
^ Very interesting article. I have been noticing the trend myself. Things are changing. Baby boomer children (for the most part) prefer to be downtown and work, play, live all in the same area. The jobs are there, the entertainment is there, and the people are there. So it's very convenient. People aren't as interested in having kids, and if they are then they are having less. Many of them are choosing not to do the traditional "spend tens of thousands to get married and have a boat load of kids, move into the country on the big lot and commute into work". That trend is on it's way out. This new generation is what is going to make Toronto transform into a true world class city. Let's just hope the government catches on and starts investing heavily into transit and infrastructure.
 
I admit I haven't read all the most recent posts, and I find adma can be snobby and wordy, but in this case I agree with him. I can't put it in elegant words as he has, and his snobby tone really turns me off, but just because his attitude might be bad doesn't mean there isn't sense in his words or that his position is wrong.

If anything, his attempts to explain why he doesn't approve of this development have helped rationalize in my mind why *I* never liked this either. So I appreciate that.
 
From a planning department point of view, I can't see how they could possibly support this development at these heights and densities. Would it not set a precedent? It's going to be very interesting to see if approval is recommend based on developer concessions, section 37 and other tradeoffs or political pressure from the local councilor.

On a personal note, I support this development because I believe what Toronto is getting is more important than what is being lost. If these towers were "value engineered" or reduced in height, than I believe it would no longer be an appropriate tradeoff considering what would be lost.

Worst case scenario is that the towers are reduced to 50 or 60s in height, in the name of compromise to planning department concerns over height and density, and the heritage buildings are demolished.
 
marsh said:
Density is not the problem per se its increased density without proper infrastructure support - not just subways and transit which is a major problem already but, other services - water/sewage systems, electrical grids, hospitals, ambulances, fire, police, schools, and proper planning for green spaces and parks. We are building way beyond our capacity right now on all of these levels.
Click to expand...

But that is not a valid argument against proceeding. It just means developers should do their jobs and the city should do its job which is installing required infrastructure. This is ridiculous its not like all these towers popped up overnight. Its been a 10 year event, time for city hall to get to work.
 
If mega projects like Mirvish-Gehry get us a DRL, then they will have added more to the city than just the project itself.

Getting a better subway would be major win, if it was spurred on from all the development pressure...
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top