- Thread starter TorontoArchitect
- Start date
Rascacielo
Senior Member
Today
someMidTowner
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
From the CN Tower on Friday:
AlbertC
Superstar
Sept 19, 2020
ciceror
Active Member
I am disappointed at the scale of these buildings. The downtown will grow no matter what, the city needs to stop putting short stump of buildings in places where taller landmark towers should be built, this site should have had a couple 50 - 60 story buildings
tstormers
Senior Member
As much of a height enthusiast as I am, I don't believe that 50-60 work look good in this area due to the large areas of single family/ duplexes in the area. I think these will actually look quite tall as there isn't too much height nearby.
I would definitely agree with you on other areas of downtown where they have capped buildings low on major roads, but then we also fall into the shadowing of schools and parks discussion that limits our reach for the sky.
ciceror
Active Member
The thing is that those single family homes wont be there for long. the value of the property far exceeds the use. soon all these homes will be sold to developers one by one and new buildings will rise, then we'll be confronted with this short M village in a new downtown. I would not be surprised if 100 years from now, the shorter buildings in this development get demolished because the property value will one day exceed the use since it's so short
afransen
Senior Member
This area is planned as a 'Mixed Use Main Street'. So, this seems in keeping. Perhaps in 100 years the surrounding area will have intensified so much that this development is dwarfed, but that is okay.
AlbertC
Superstar
The scale of this Mirvish Village project is fine in my books. What I'd like to see is more buildings around this similar height at major intersections outside of downtown. While mid-block buildings along major streets like Bloor and Bathurst gradually be intensified into the 5-10 storey range. And more missing middle housing development along yellow belt side streets wherever suitable.
Northern Light
Superstar
I can't agree.
First, one must consider that not ALL growth in ALL forms is good. That tearing down old things can be a loss, not merely aesthetic, or cultural but in terms of cost and the environment.
That certainly is not opposition to redevelopment or intensification. But anyone wanting to rip down Palmerston Avenue's charm will face my wrath!
****
Lets then add that density as a goal is important, and that there's lots of that here.
This is not a modest density project.
As you increase height, by and large, you decrease floor plate.
You run into not merely sun/shadow issues, but also minimum separation distances that can limit density growth relative to investment size.
One must also consider that maxing out density on one site, in areas already short of parks has serious implications for quality of life, even in normal times, let alone pandemic ones.
If the City were to offset maximum growth with new park space, you actually reduce density materially.
If you rebuilt greater downtown Toronto today, you would more than septuple (multiply by 7) the park space under current guidelines; before factoring in population growth.
Think about how many hectares of land need to come out of service.
Moreover, where affordability is a goal, greater height (after a certain point) is a hindrance).
Building a 60-storey residential tower is more expensive per square foot and per tenant/owner than building a 10-storey building.
The City's current needs and projected growth clearly demand greater density and better use of main street properties than small, also-ran homes and generic 2-storey retail.
These must be replaced, and typically, with materially more height.
But the notion that said height/density need always some in form of skyscrapers or super talls is misplaced.
Mirvish (if executed to its potential) is one of the most thoughtful intensifications this City has seen.
It substantially increases density, in a transit-friendly way, with fine-grained architecture, new public space and preserved history.
This is how it should be done, more often, not less.
There are surely spaces that call for 40+ floors, but that need not be the most common expression of density, nor should it be.
Last edited:
ML555
Active Member
Well said.
evandyk
Senior Member
Palmerston actually has a bunch of apartment buildings on it already! It's part of what gives it its charm, though none of them would be legal to build today.
Northern Light
Superstar
True, but none are 50 storeys.
Nor 40, 30, 20 or 10.
They make a perfect case for how comparatively short buildings can do a wonderful job of intensifying streets.
That said, I'm perfectly content to support much taller along main streets!
AlexBozikovic
Active Member
Two Palmerston apartments in this thread. Each easily has a higher density than the Mirvish project
Northern Light
Superstar
Of course, in that very Twitter thread you cite Councillor Mike Layton who noted that the building's layout isn't even safe from a fire code perspective. (narrow halls, stairs etc.).
You're also calculating density off the entire Mirvish site which includes parks/open space requirements that you would ignore even though the area has very low park space and everyone, but especially apartment dwellers without a backyard require that.
On top of which you would ignore the heritage properties that everyone wants saved but you.
Though oddly you have time to try to save the decrepit, 2-storey, low-density, aesthetic disaster that is Sneaky Dees.
I really don't mean this personally, I don't know you; but I find your posts increasingly illogical and inconsistent in ways that baffle me.
.
Last edited: