NoahB said:
Towers cost-effective in Toronto given the cost of land. Shade isn't a new invention. Towers have been around for more than a century and shade hasn't been a big issue until some people decided that their front lawn deserves sunlight more than people deserve housing.

Building on top of stations and on construction lands helps subsidize the construction of the infrastructure. It also provides a new revenue stream for the agency/city building them.
Click to expand...
It is remarkable how different the St Lawrence project is compared to what Metrolinx thinks is good development. If you want to build a good mixed-use, you cannot build to maximum density and have a liveable environment. You have to have mixed-density and mixed heights. It's like Metrolinx thinks the only good development is a max development. That's not city-building, that's city-destroying.

If they can really justify the amount of commercial they want, then maybe build taller in individual towers, and break up the wall effect. And have smaller buildings also. Otherwise, it will be cold and barren and windy. There are other factors other than money that need to be considered.
 
Alex L said:
It is remarkable how different the St Lawrence project is compared to what Metrolinx thinks is good development. If you want to build a good mixed-use, you cannot build to maximum density and have a liveable environment. You have to have mixed-density and mixed heights. It's like Metrolinx thinks the only good development is a max development. That's not city-building, that's city-destroying.

If they can really justify the amount of commercial they want, then maybe build taller in individual towers, and break up the wall effect. And have smaller buildings also. Otherwise, it will be cold and barren and windy. There are other factors other than money that need to be considered.
Click to expand...
"max destiny" is an arbitrarily set number based on subjective experience...

In North America, people tend to mix-up tall towers with density when the correlation is not direct. For example, the Plateau in Montreal has over double the density of downtown Montreal and is (slightly) denser than Downtown Toronto without any buildings higher than 5 floors. But that's a whole nother discussion.

You can create a good street by including a varied, human-scale streetwall in shape and use. The streetwall does not care as much about the tower behind/above it but should be designed to mitigate wind. It needs to have street-facing medium to small shops that cater to different needs like community, shopping, and food. The street also needs to be slow enough that the car traffic does not become overbearing with smoke and noise. And finally, there should be a combination of places to sit and walk like parks, preferably under trees.

I live now at the College Park area where the Aura and other towers literally shadow my building all day except noon. But this is the most livable neighborhood I've lived in the city regardless of height. To each their own though.
 
Last edited:
pw20 said:
There's such an opportunity to rethink urban space (i.e. closing down James Street + and part of University Avenue to create more open space) as part of the Ontario Line. The allusion to building a station entrance box on Osgoode Hall... is concerning.
Click to expand...

Though I can understand that they have very limited choices around the area for exits (esp. on the east side) and the University Avenue redo hasn't been approved, much less actualized yet.

AoD
 
pw20 said:
There's such an opportunity to rethink urban space (i.e. closing down James Street + and part of University Avenue to create more open space) as part of the Ontario Line. The allusion to building a station entrance box on Osgoode Hall... is concerning.
Click to expand...
Steve's point about using University Ave for the entrance instead of Osgoode Hall is a great one - could help to kick start the University Park project
 
turini2 said:
Steve's point about using University Ave for the entrance instead of Osgoode Hall is a great one - could help to kick start the University Park project
Click to expand...

Though there is a problem with that as well - since the University Park project foresee shifting all the traffic lanes to the west. I don't think Metrolinx can build an entrance with that in mind and not use up any of the existing northbound lanes on University - their ability to do that really depends on the city having made the decision. Also a well designed station at the proposed spot should still be broadly speaking OK if they are careful with the design.

AoD
 
From link.

Looking south....
1624052191530.png

1624052221275.png

They could build the entrance using the current "northbound" lanes. Then cover it over with the park afterwards.
 
I hadn't seen that proposal before. I like the idea of traffic calming, interesting road treatment, reduction of lanes and bike lanes, etc... but I would hate to see the large median removed and University Ave to become any other street. If anything I would take away the two middle most lanes and many of the turn around points and make the median even more grandiose.
 
EnviroTO said:
I hadn't seen that proposal before. I like the idea of traffic calming, interesting road treatment, reduction of lanes and bike lanes, etc... but I would hate to see the large median removed and University Ave to become any other street. If anything I would take away the two middle most lanes and many of the turn around points and make the median even more grandiose.
Click to expand...

i feel like that would be such a suboptimal use of space. A good-sized park, cut off from its surroundings by high-speed traffic in all directions.

Toronto is just plain not a city of grandiose avenues. And honestly, GOOD. University Ave-type streets are way overrated in my opinion; they’re dime a dozen in North American cities, and they’re usually little more than high-volume vehicle movers.

Given the street goes directly through several major hospitals, turning what is currently a traffic sewer into a green space that could partially function as a place of respite for hospital patients is a no-brainer in my opinion.

University Park would be a far more unique and novel use of space than what is currently there.
 
W. K. Lis said:
From link.

Looking south....
View attachment 328937
View attachment 328938
They could build the entrance using the current "northbound" lanes. Then cover it over with the park afterwards.
Click to expand...

NY99 said:
i feel like that would be such a suboptimal use of space. A good-sized park, cut off from its surroundings by high-speed traffic in all directions.

Toronto is just plain not a city of grandiose avenues. And honestly, GOOD. University Ave-type streets are way overrated in my opinion; they’re dime a dozen in North American cities, and they’re usually little more than high-volume vehicle movers.

Given the street goes directly through several major hospitals, turning what is currently a traffic sewer into a green space that could partially function as a place of respite for hospital patients is a no-brainer in my opinion.

University Park would be a far more unique and novel use of space than what is currently there.
Click to expand...
Haha yeah, imagine the congestion in that bottom picture, it's already bad enough as it is.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top