UtakataNoAnnex said:
Those buried walls date back to the Roman Empire I believe...

...I don't one would find something that old in Moss Park though..outside of some of the opinions that show up on this thread, that is. >.<
Click to expand...

They're probably older, but it's the same principle. The foundations they uncovered at Moss Park might date back to the impressive British empire :) I wish we'd allow our city to have a sense of history and culture by displaying finds like these ones in our public spaces.
 
UtakataNoAnnex said:
Those buried walls date back to the Roman Empire I believe...

...I don't one would find something that old in Moss Park though..outside of some of the opinions that show up on this thread, that is. >.<
Click to expand...

That’s Vienna. They certainly do.

Remember when the old sewer under the north St. Lawrence Market building was left exposed for a bit?
 
ShonTron said:
That’s Vienna. They certainly do.

Remember when the old sewer under the north St. Lawrence Market building was left exposed for a bit?
Click to expand...
Well...that was my mistake, as I thought that was London, not-Ont. Where a friend posted me pics of exposed Roman walls in this manner from there in the anecdote. Either would be an example of what we would like to see done here.
 
Last edited:
UtakataNoAnnex said:
Well...that was my mistake, as I thought that was London, not-Ont. Where a friend posted me pics of exposed Roman walls in this manner from there in the anecdote. Either would be an example of what we would like to see done here.
Click to expand...

I only recognized it as I was just there.

IMG_1576.jpeg

IMG_1578.jpeg
IMG_1579.jpeg
 
I'd consider myself pretty YIMBY and pro-development - but it's very odd to see people on twitter querying why this station won't have a tower on top of it. (Or are they being facetious regarding the towers proposed atop other OL stations? I dunno.)

Because... it's a park?! Allowing developers to build on parkland is a slippery slope that I am certainly unwilling to encourage...
(I'd have preferred the station built in the roadway with a station entrance on the south side of Queen... but I get that ship has long since sailed)
 
turini2 said:
I'd consider myself pretty YIMBY and pro-development - but it's very odd to see people on twitter querying why this station won't have a tower on top of it. (Or are they being facetious regarding the towers proposed atop other OL stations? I dunno.)

Because... it's a park?! Allowing developers to build on parkland is a slippery slope that I am certainly unwilling to encourage...
(I'd have preferred the station built in the roadway with a station entrance on the south side of Queen... but I get that ship has long since sailed)
Click to expand...

I'll restate what I wrote on Twitter about this:

Handing over Ontario Place to private developers is seen as bad and needs to be stopped.... but handing over Moss Park is apparently fine?

It's like these people actually work in the development & construction industry and are trying to drum up business, instead of contemplating what would actually be best for the neighbourhood. This is a massive blind spot for some urbanists who think that transit stations should automatically, in all cases, have condo buildings built on top of them.

Also... sheesh, there are already some big buildings going up on the SE and SW corners of the intersection, including this massive project:
19924-75306.jpg
 
warrens said:
I'll restate what I wrote on Twitter about this:

Handing over Ontario Place to private developers is seen as bad and needs to be stopped.... but handing over Moss Park is apparently fine?

It's like these people actually work in the development & construction industry and are trying to drum up business, instead of contemplating what would actually be best for the neighbourhood. This is a massive blind spot for some urbanists who think that transit stations should automatically, in all cases, have condo buildings built on top of them.

Also... sheesh, there are already some big buildings going up on the SE and SW corners of the intersection, including this massive project:
View attachment 549864
Click to expand...
I think there is room for discussion about the need for transit stations next to parks, high park for example, its not like the intention is to give a massive transit stop at the park, a happy coincidence when line 2 was being built would be a better description.

That said, We should look at building towers around stations. look at high park and see how many towers there are there.

Its not like being near a park means there should be a buffer zone around it
 
generalcanada said:
I think there is room for discussion about the need for transit stations next to parks, high park for example, its not like the intention is to give a massive transit stop at the park, a happy coincidence when line 2 was being built would be a better description.

That said, We should look at building towers around stations. look at high park and see how many towers there are there.

Its not like being near a park means there should be a buffer zone around it
Click to expand...

I really don't understand what point you're trying to make here with regards to Moss Park station, which is the topic of this thread.

Did I not just say that several buildings are going up immediately around this station? I found a picture and everything....
They will join several extant towers on both Sherbourne and Queen.

What more do you want?
 
warrens said:
I really don't understand what point you're trying to make here with regards to Moss Park station, which is the topic of this thread.

Did I not just say that several buildings are going up immediately around this station? I found a picture and everything....
They will join several extant towers on both Sherbourne and Queen.

What more do you want?
Click to expand...
im confused what youre point is, are you in favour of massive density around parks?

based on this line I read it as you dont like it

Also... sheesh, there are already some big buildings going up on the SE and SW corners of the intersection, including this massive project:
Click to expand...
 
Hopefully, they'll eventually tackle the ceiling. In its current state, it looks like they ran out of money half way through the project. Regarding the archaeological find, what standard would need to reached for preservation/protection to kick in or is it purely a subjective decision?
 
Last edited:
warrens said:
I'll restate what I wrote on Twitter about this:

Handing over Ontario Place to private developers is seen as bad and needs to be stopped.... but handing over Moss Park is apparently fine?

It's like these people actually work in the development & construction industry and are trying to drum up business, instead of contemplating what would actually be best for the neighbourhood. This is a massive blind spot for some urbanists who think that transit stations should automatically, in all cases, have condo buildings built on top of them.

Also... sheesh, there are already some big buildings going up on the SE and SW corners of the intersection, including this massive project:
View attachment 549864
Click to expand...

FYI, this rendering is old and is not happening. Since this proposal, the lot was severed into two different developments.
See ROQ City: https://urbantoronto.ca/forum/threads/toronto-roq-city-113m-33s-tricon-hariri-pontarini.32562/
and 245 Queen Street East: https://urbantoronto.ca/forum/threa...3m-25s-one-properties-graziani-corazza.25157/
 
turini2 said:
I'd consider myself pretty YIMBY and pro-development - but it's very odd to see people on twitter querying why this station won't have a tower on top of it. (Or are they being facetious regarding the towers proposed atop other OL stations? I dunno.)

Because... it's a park?! Allowing developers to build on parkland is a slippery slope that I am certainly unwilling to encourage...
(I'd have preferred the station built in the roadway with a station entrance on the south side of Queen... but I get that ship has long since sailed)
Click to expand...
Ah, I found the example I was thinking of
https://twitter.com/x/status/1770513244983087217
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top