[TrickyRicky]

A thoughtful response MikeOlivo-Moore. Perhaps the very advantage of high-rise residential buildings is that they increase density while killing vitality. Space, both physical and psychological is essential to livability. By increasing density you get the advantages associated with density, while suppression of street vitality gives people greater physical and psychologicl space per capital per sq km. Cold weather also kills vitality and that may actually be an advantage to think about here in Toronto given our cold climate. Go to any bursting developing nation city when it's +30 outside and come back and try to argue that density is a good thing.

 

[bleu]

A good article, written by a better writer than myself, can be read here. I posted this in the casino thread, but its applicable to this conversation I think:
LINK

The idea makes sense but the numbers in the charts seem questionable.
1) The quality of life index is a measurement for expats (for whom costs/salary is not an issue). I am not sure how well it measures quality of life of local residents.
2) I notice the density is for metro area, while the quality of life index I believe is for the cities, not the entire metro. For example, it shows Paris has a density of 704, while its city density is 30 times of that.
3) putting developed countries in the chart makes little sense as lower quality of life is mostly due to lower income, not density related factors.

at the same time, Florida also believes Cities With Denser Cores Do Better http://www.theatlanticcities.com/jobs-and-economy/2012/11/cities-denser-cores-do-better/3911/

 

[gristle]

And for the better IMO. Wouldn't mind having a. 60m height limit between Bathurst and spadina as well, compared to the current 35. I wish they allowed height based on design sometimes as well.. That way good designs like Picasso would get to be 180sh Meters tall instead of 130ish.

The plan was coming up for review for the east precinct of K-S. As for Spadina to Bathurst, the defacto OMB height limit is now around 55 metres, so you've got your wish. Because of that, many of the existing buildings will eventually disappear. Height limits don't automatically make for great buildings or neighbourhoods. Sound planning and good design does.

The thing that no one considers is what impact these 40 or more floor buildings are having on the MPAC assessments of the older brick warehouse and office structures. The taxes are killing them. That will spell doom for many of the structures.

 

[Irishmonk]

I think you have to take anything written by Richard Florida with a grain elevator of salt. I honesty don't know how the man retains a shred of credibility with some of the nonsensical numbers that he pulls out of his ass, and the conclusions that he draws from them. (Los Angeles is denser than Paris...*faceplant*).

 

[ChesterCopperpot]

Second public meeting about this project

Date: February 19 2013
Time: 6:30-9pm
Location: Metro Hall, 55 John Street, Room 308/309


Mirvish/Gehry King St Development Planning Meeting

I would like to invite you to the second public meeting about the Mirvish/Gehry development proposal on King St W.

When: Tuesday, February 19, 2013

Time: 6:30 – 7:00 pm – open house to view plans, 7:00 – 9:00 pm – presentation and Q+A

Location: Metro Hall, 55 John Street, Room 308/309

At the first meeting, held on December 11, 2012, we collected your feedback about the questions that must be reviewed as part of this development application, over and above the normal process for planning applications.

Thank you to those of you who attended and provided your feedback about the questions that must be asked regarding community services and amenities, height, density, shadow, heritage, traffic, transit, public realm, infrastructure, construction staging, etc. That feedback will help to inform the review and assessment of this application.

At this upcoming meeting, we plan to review the development proposal in greater detail with the applicant in attendance. Join me and City staff to hear about the details of the proposal and provide your feedback.

 

[rpeters]

I don't know why we keep using Paris as an example of good density. Are people aware of the insane inequality in that city? You have a bunch of rich people living in the centre of each French city and the rest living in ghettoes that surround the centre.
I know barrier 13 is a fictional movie but you get an idea of the banlieues from it. Do we really want that? A great way to deal with Large buildings adding density is to add parks to make up for it. Maybe they could convince mirvish to build 2 towers and add a park in the space for the third. Or force him to build a park over the rail tracks like Oxford is doing, so slowly but surely we can reclaim that space and connect those areas of downtown.

 

[RC8]

Or just reduce them in height to 40-50 stories to fit with Toronto's official plan. If these buildings are sculptures they will be even more beautiful to those who live in them at a height of 150m than at a height of 300m.

Having these at that height, across from the Ritz-Carlton and next to Theatre Park and TIFF's Lightbox would be sublime.

I mean, can you really appreciate FCP at street level? I can't, and I would like to be able to fully take in all these beauties as I walk along King.

 

[innsertnamehere]

you do realize this area is currently zoned for 30 meters right? this would have to be reduced to shorter than the podium to fit with Toronto's official plan.

 

[gristle]

you do realize this area is currently zoned for 30 meters right? this would have to be reduced to shorter than the podium to fit with Toronto's official plan.

That's no longer quite so. The new planning guidelines for the east precinct of King-Spadina reflect the reality of towers in the area.

 

[HotStuff]

If this project is cancelled, I give up on Toronto.

 

[Automation Gallery]

If this project is cancelled, I give up on Toronto.

LoL, according to gristle everytime a tall tower in Toronto is proposed, its not reflecting the precinct of the area and breaking the planning guidelines.
With over 200 cranes in the sky and 25 tall bldg. proposals of over 200 meters, its time to amend that...unless of course, they (city) just want to keep making backroom deals, and milking developers for the exchange of increased density.

 

[adma]

So, of your 7 points, the only really legit one was heritage preservation...

As I said, however many pages back.

(And again, it's more about it being a legitimate issue *at all*, rather than "Anderson outclasses anything Gehry could create" arguments that might as well facepalm-fuel the anti-heritage argument)

 

[johnwood]

As I said, however many pages back.

(And again, it's more about it being a legitimate issue *at all*, rather than "Anderson outclasses anything Gehry could create" arguments that might as well facepalm-fuel the anti-heritage argument)

When is toronto going to realize that height is beautiful, period.

 

[brockm]

I don't know why we keep using Paris as an example of good density. Are people aware of the insane inequality in that city? You have a bunch of rich people living in the centre of each French city and the rest living in ghettoes that surround the centre.
I know barrier 13 is a fictional movie but you get an idea of the banlieues from it. Do we really want that? A great way to deal with Large buildings adding density is to add parks to make up for it. Maybe they could convince mirvish to build 2 towers and add a park in the space for the third. Or force him to build a park over the rail tracks like Oxford is doing, so slowly but surely we can reclaim that space and connect those areas of downtown.

Yes. This is actually what a lot of people want. Well... most urbanists generally want living downtown to be affordable. But they reject the idea that supply and demand has anything to do with pricing. Which is understandable given the last 30+ years of real estate history where prices have, throughout most of the world, been completely detached from any other reasonable factors like income growth.

Actually, urbanists tend to talk out of both sides of their mouth on the affordability front. They aspire to be as expensive as other "world class cities" like London, Paris New York and Tokyo. To them, this is indicative of success.

When I point out that if cities like London allowed unrestricted high-rise residential development that prices would come down, they reject this. Because they believe that prices are merely prestige based. That, no matter how many square feet of rentable space you have, prices will track higher in a place like London. They believe this like a law of nature.

As someone who has studied this for quite some time, I don't believe this to be true at all. Instead the real mystery as to how prices can track higher in the face of ever-expanding supply has everything to do with access to cheap credit. If the credit punch bowel were removed, and people were forced to adjust their borrowing to their incomes, additional housing stock would with certainty push prices down relative to incomes.

In Manhattan, the reason rent is so damned high is because the vacancy rates are so damned low. Not just because it's "New York". The vacancy rates and price pressures clearly show there is not enough housing in the city to meet demand. There are also damaging price controls, an extremely large number of New York buildings under historical protection, and an extremely hard-to-satify planning department that feed into this undersupply.

It drives me insane that so many people just assert the "world class prices for world class cities" axiom as if it's some law of nature.

On the contrary, as Edward Glaeser did a good job of detailing in his book, Triumph of the City, these world class cities are also among the most anti-development cities in the world today. Largely in the name of protecting history and character.

 

[Silence&Motion]

A great way to deal with Large buildings adding density is to add parks to make up for it.

Fantastic idea. I suggest we continue to replace our urban form with large towers, and then balance out the density by surrounding the towers with parks. Kind of a "towers in the park" strategy if you will.


P.S. I know I took your quote out of context, but I couldn't help myself.