Edward
Senior Member
They were quick but then it is quicker when you can build before you sell anything.
unimaginative2
Senior Member
Hume on Pinnacle: St. Jamestown Redux
A St. James Town redux by the lake?
Aug 11, 2007 04:30 AM
Christopher Hume
The idea that the area west of Yonge St., south of the downtown railway tracks could become a neighbourhood is new.
As recently as five years ago, much of the land was devoted to parking lots, which made it feel like the leftover space it was. That's all changed now and condos are going up in every direction.
This is good and bad. It's good because it brings people into the city and in a district that's fairly well serviced; bad because much of what's going up seems to have been designed without regard for the larger context.
In other words, we have failed to create the kind of urban village that people like best and for which Toronto has been lauded.
Instead, we have a series of discreet projects that don't add up to more than the sum of their parts.
Once again, we are witness to the failure of planning in Toronto, which never seems to manage to keep its eye – and its efforts – focused on the big picture.
Though the quality of the architecture is relatively uninspired, the big issue is lack of planning and vision.
The rules seem to be concerned with questions of height, how buildings address the street and similar details. These are tremendously important – no question about that – but the bigger problem is figuring how to knit these disparate schemes into a semblance of a city. That hasn't happened, and so rather than building the city, these developers are constructing buildings.
Their failure, all the worse for having been enabled by an inadequate civic planning regime, does not bode well for the future of the area, which could well become a waterfront St. James Town, high density and cut off from the rest of the city.
There are other factors that also make planning difficult: The Gardiner Expressway cuts through the site, as does Lake Shore Blvd. and the railroad embankment. The city should have intervened and reduced the size of the roads and extended new narrow streets through the area to enhance access and bring the precinct into the larger community.
But, of course, that would have required boldness and vision, two qualities conspicuously absent at city hall. It would also have needed the resolve to reduce the role of the car in the urban core, which our politicians and planners will never have the nerve or intelligence to undertake.
In Toronto, we have yet to grasp the fact that cars destroy cities. We will never eliminate cars, it's true, but we don't need to. What's critical is to restore a balance between vehicular and pedestrian uses. But with each passing year, we hand over more of the city to cars and trucks.
Indeed, for a decade we have been busy suburbanizing the downtown and here are the results for all to see.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
chume@thestar.ca
CONDO CRITIC
THE PINNACLE: Though only three of the four towers are complete, it's already clear that the Pinnacle isn't going to save this part of the city. It's more of the same; ordinary architecture mixed with inferior planning to make a project that should have been so much better. Instead of creating a neighbourhood, this is just the application of development formulas, devoid of any understanding of city building. The best aspect of Pinnacle is what happens at street level; clearly the planners had a lot to say about ensuring the architects used the tower-on-a-podium model, and insisted that the podium be curved to follow the bend in the street, which is actually an exit from the Gardiner. But the materials are proudly ordinary and the green-tinted glass cladding quite unpleasant to look at. This is knee-jerk architecture, the kind of design that certain firms can knock off in their sleep. For developers, it's the kind of stuff they can build with their brains on hold. The best one can say is that it's competent. This is what we've grown to expect in a city asleep at the switch.
GRADE: C
A St. James Town redux by the lake?
Aug 11, 2007 04:30 AM
Christopher Hume
The idea that the area west of Yonge St., south of the downtown railway tracks could become a neighbourhood is new.
As recently as five years ago, much of the land was devoted to parking lots, which made it feel like the leftover space it was. That's all changed now and condos are going up in every direction.
This is good and bad. It's good because it brings people into the city and in a district that's fairly well serviced; bad because much of what's going up seems to have been designed without regard for the larger context.
In other words, we have failed to create the kind of urban village that people like best and for which Toronto has been lauded.
Instead, we have a series of discreet projects that don't add up to more than the sum of their parts.
Once again, we are witness to the failure of planning in Toronto, which never seems to manage to keep its eye – and its efforts – focused on the big picture.
Though the quality of the architecture is relatively uninspired, the big issue is lack of planning and vision.
The rules seem to be concerned with questions of height, how buildings address the street and similar details. These are tremendously important – no question about that – but the bigger problem is figuring how to knit these disparate schemes into a semblance of a city. That hasn't happened, and so rather than building the city, these developers are constructing buildings.
Their failure, all the worse for having been enabled by an inadequate civic planning regime, does not bode well for the future of the area, which could well become a waterfront St. James Town, high density and cut off from the rest of the city.
There are other factors that also make planning difficult: The Gardiner Expressway cuts through the site, as does Lake Shore Blvd. and the railroad embankment. The city should have intervened and reduced the size of the roads and extended new narrow streets through the area to enhance access and bring the precinct into the larger community.
But, of course, that would have required boldness and vision, two qualities conspicuously absent at city hall. It would also have needed the resolve to reduce the role of the car in the urban core, which our politicians and planners will never have the nerve or intelligence to undertake.
In Toronto, we have yet to grasp the fact that cars destroy cities. We will never eliminate cars, it's true, but we don't need to. What's critical is to restore a balance between vehicular and pedestrian uses. But with each passing year, we hand over more of the city to cars and trucks.
Indeed, for a decade we have been busy suburbanizing the downtown and here are the results for all to see.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
chume@thestar.ca
CONDO CRITIC
THE PINNACLE: Though only three of the four towers are complete, it's already clear that the Pinnacle isn't going to save this part of the city. It's more of the same; ordinary architecture mixed with inferior planning to make a project that should have been so much better. Instead of creating a neighbourhood, this is just the application of development formulas, devoid of any understanding of city building. The best aspect of Pinnacle is what happens at street level; clearly the planners had a lot to say about ensuring the architects used the tower-on-a-podium model, and insisted that the podium be curved to follow the bend in the street, which is actually an exit from the Gardiner. But the materials are proudly ordinary and the green-tinted glass cladding quite unpleasant to look at. This is knee-jerk architecture, the kind of design that certain firms can knock off in their sleep. For developers, it's the kind of stuff they can build with their brains on hold. The best one can say is that it's competent. This is what we've grown to expect in a city asleep at the switch.
GRADE: C
mysteryman
Active Member
um, only 2 of the 4 by my count.
lordmandeep
Banned
it sucks but his ridiculous comparisons really make him appear quite stupid.
buildup
Senior Member
What is to prevent Cityplace from moving down-market in 15 years? Save for the fact they are condos and not rental its hard to see. Other parts of the city have more durable qualities like high-end retail, historic architecture, proximity to commercial businesses, pedestrian friendly streets, etc. Cityplace better find some successful mixed-use model to emulate because once the trend starts to reverse it will be hard to turn-around. If most of the condos are rented out rather than owner-occupied then we're already in trouble.
At this point they should identify 5 themes to focus on and perhaps the condo owners should chip in because its their asset.
What about an office tower right smack in the middle?
A "world class" park?
A pedestrian boulevard?
This should be adresed rather than waiting for the rot to set in.
At this point they should identify 5 themes to focus on and perhaps the condo owners should chip in because its their asset.
What about an office tower right smack in the middle?
A "world class" park?
A pedestrian boulevard?
This should be adresed rather than waiting for the rot to set in.
adma
Superstar
It might "humble up" a little; but it'll only go catastrophically downmarket if Toronto undergoes some kind of Detroitian urban implosion, I reckon.
Okay, maybe at worst, a Crossways or Main Square scale of "downmarket"...
Jdot
Active Member
I'm sick of hearing how CityPlace is going to turn into St.Jamestown.
unimaginative2
Senior Member
Note that he isn't actually talking about Cityplace, which he reviewed last week. He's talking about those projects east of Bay Street tucked between the elevated railway tracks and Gardiner.
marcus_a_j
Senior Member
^ south side of the Gardiner
alklay
Senior Member
So am I, as such an argument really has no precedent. Comparing rental-only buildings with condos is comparing apples and oranges. Show me one condo (non-rental) building in Toronto that has become seriously in distress over the last thirty years. My guess is that there are none.
As well, so much of the health of the building has to do with the community of people renting in the building (which is sometimes determined by the cost of renting). Based upon these elements, I would not be holding my breath waiting for either Cityplace or Pinnacle to become another "St. Jamestown."
maestro
Senior Member
there are quite a few out there
Urban Shocker
Doyenne
Every place is owned by somebody. That doesn't prevent some of them from becoming slums.
caltrane74
Senior Member
Pinnacle Centre is better than the parking lot that was there before. And if you figure the cost of the land ( or how expensive the land is..) This type of development is probably the only kind that makes financial sense.
Jdot
Active Member
Hume didnt say anything about CityPlace and I wasnt refering to him. I was refering to buildup's reply which only commented on CityPlace. Same old same old bash CityPlace.
Hume's an idiot. His office is across the street and he can't figure out that only two and not three of the towers are done.
As for City Place my brother-in-law was recently offered just under $500 a square feet for his low level unit. I hardly equate that with St Jamestown.
As for City Place my brother-in-law was recently offered just under $500 a square feet for his low level unit. I hardly equate that with St Jamestown.