GenerationW
Senior Member
Twenty bucks says they're the same person.
- Thread starter golodhendil
- Start date
Lenser
Senior Member
I always get the same sensation when I'm reading balenciaga's posts.
agoraflaneur
Active Member
Yeah, let's be so modern like Angola. Chinese development companies can show us what real modernity is like!
This is a suburb built 18K from the main city which has no residents because of poor planning. Now that is intelligent urbanism. What hacks we are here in mypopic North America.
Beijing shows us the way with their Centralized and totally controlled Media Headquarters by Rem Koolhaus (aptly named CCTV):
Wow, if only I could live there. Towers everywhere! So broad-minded and progressive!
If only Toronto were as dense as this:
This type of urban development is monocultural and destroys everything about a good city.
I mean, can you believe no one lives here!?!
Yet another development where all the housing sits idle and empty because they are all owned by speculators who don't care at all about building a good city. This is not how you build vibrant cities.
(I actually think North America could wise up, just having a bit of fun after being in China and experiencing how alienating so many of their urban areas are - and of course how nice some are too).
Attachments
Last edited:
balenciaga
Banned
I don't want to be considered as hogging again, so I will repond with only one post regarding this.
You think the Chinese style apartment rows are ugly, but how are they any worse than a typical Toronto suburb.
Chinese cities have a lot more people, so they can't have those cookie cutter SFH, but replaced them with cookie cutter apartment buildings. Essentially they are the same, both boring and ugly.
You think the Chinese style apartment rows are ugly, but how are they any worse than a typical Toronto suburb.
Chinese cities have a lot more people, so they can't have those cookie cutter SFH, but replaced them with cookie cutter apartment buildings. Essentially they are the same, both boring and ugly.
Attachments
Last edited by a moderator:
RC8
Senior Member
Density is not what matters. We must meet minimum-density-thresholds to have a great city, and Toronto is well on its way to meet those thresholds.
What is really important is that we build a city for people and not for cars and/or trains. Shanghai and Beijing are very dense but they are, for the most part, not made for people.
What is really important is that we build a city for people and not for cars and/or trains. Shanghai and Beijing are very dense but they are, for the most part, not made for people.
agoraflaneur
Active Member
Balenciaga, the difference is not in beauty, it is in quality of life. Clearly, each of those houses is large, and people in North America - as in Asia I will tell you - love to have lots of space (super rich in Asia have mansions too you know, which is what all middle class people in NA tried to recreate, with a lot of success). Those houses have lots of room for green space that each person owns, they don't have people looming over you. Also, each person owns their own land and can do what they want with it (within code), and land ownership is impossible in a high rise situation - especially China, where you never really own anything.
In the end, I don't think one is necessarily superior in every way to the other, I was just illustrating the point that your "myopia" extends both ways. I actually think more density is better. You give up some things to have suburbia - like exciting street life and a more environmentally friendly life - and you gain others - like space, privacy, etc. But your attitude never sees the other side. While I don't like suburbs much myself and hated growing up in them, I don't think the way to go is to bulldoze everything and build towers of the same type, which is what would happen most likely if we destroyed our neighbourhoods. And by the way, most of the debates we are having aren't about the suburbs, but downtown Victorian suburbs, which are much more beautiful than the ones you posted, and those are the ones I would like to save - or at least modify while preserving, i.e. by having laneway hosing, infill buildings, etc. In sum, sensitive development.
But I do agree with you that we should allow a lot of height for the Mirvish towers - I don't think there is too much difference between 60 and 80. I would like to see shadowing studies and the like, but I am inclined to let it fly here, so don't take too much offence - I actually agree with you and was just joking around because of the way you put your arguments so derisively. So sorry if it was insensitive, I was in a silly mood. My suggestion is that everyone would be better off to see the other side, and that goes for those who disagree with you as well.
In the end, I don't think one is necessarily superior in every way to the other, I was just illustrating the point that your "myopia" extends both ways. I actually think more density is better. You give up some things to have suburbia - like exciting street life and a more environmentally friendly life - and you gain others - like space, privacy, etc. But your attitude never sees the other side. While I don't like suburbs much myself and hated growing up in them, I don't think the way to go is to bulldoze everything and build towers of the same type, which is what would happen most likely if we destroyed our neighbourhoods. And by the way, most of the debates we are having aren't about the suburbs, but downtown Victorian suburbs, which are much more beautiful than the ones you posted, and those are the ones I would like to save - or at least modify while preserving, i.e. by having laneway hosing, infill buildings, etc. In sum, sensitive development.
But I do agree with you that we should allow a lot of height for the Mirvish towers - I don't think there is too much difference between 60 and 80. I would like to see shadowing studies and the like, but I am inclined to let it fly here, so don't take too much offence - I actually agree with you and was just joking around because of the way you put your arguments so derisively. So sorry if it was insensitive, I was in a silly mood. My suggestion is that everyone would be better off to see the other side, and that goes for those who disagree with you as well.
Last edited:
balenciaga
Banned
Shanghai and Beijing are not intentionally made to be that dense. The population is large, and you have to cope with that. It is silly to say those cities are not made for people as high density is not a design.
Plus, Shanghai is hardly as dense you think. The city has 23M people on a land of 6300kmsq, exactly 10 times the size of Toronto, with 8 times the population. Is it considered super dense? It is its core area that is congested.
agoraflaneur
Active Member
First you say density is good, rah rah density, bad bad suburban myopia; then it is "not so dense, so okay." You don't even make a point at all. Since there is no consistency in the argument, and you completely ignore anything you don't think you can make a trite retort to, there is hardly any point in responding to your arguments.
Last edited:
adma
Superstar
Though he doesn't seem as, uh, "petulant" as kkgg7 was. (Maybe the anti-paychotic medication "took".)
Lenser
Senior Member
If it's the same dude, he's learning. In any case, many of the talking points are oddly familiar. Of the same tribe, perchance.
Back to the project itself. Must we see significant height reductions before the thing is green-lit?
Back to the project itself. Must we see significant height reductions before the thing is green-lit?
fedplanner
Active Member
Thanks!
If Mirvish+Gehry is significantly reduced in density, is it still worth building them considering what will be lost? I say no.
Automation Gallery
Superstar
I agree, i think any major reduced height/density and they'll pull the plug on this project, same goes with Oxford Front street
.....i get a gutt feeling Toronto is not ready for any of this, and the councillor and city planning will probably turn it into a clown show
fedplanner
Active Member
I have a very good idea what city planning will recommend. Councillor Vaughan is the wildcard in all of this. I just can't figure that guy out. I suspect David Mirvish met with Vaughan and expressed his intentions before getting too far along in the preliminary planning stages. Possible Section 37 extractions may have been discussed. Vaughan is much more critical of the Oxford proposal however, and not just the casino component. Perhaps Oxford didn't sufficiently consult him and stroke his ego before going public. They should have taken a page from Mirvish's book and promise to shower Ward 20 with community improvements if allowed to build. [/end tangent]
Since Toronto's city councillors have an unhealthy amount of influence in development decisions in their ward, hopefully Vaughan will be able to sway city planning's recommendation in favor of approval without demanding significant reductions in density. If he accomplishes that, he'll be okay in my books.
As AG said, it will be a great show! I hope Urban Toronto members turn out in solidarity for the public consultation process. Regardless whether you support this development, please, please, please show up and let your voice be heard because the alternative is to leave it to the current crop of rotting BANANAs to provide their feedback, which is usually the case.
Dan416
Senior Member
I'd rather see the Oxford proposal go ahead than this one. At least the Oxford proposal doesn't destroy a nice urban streetscape.
sixrings
Senior Member
I agree. Really like the existing streetscape.