[diminutive]

People who want 'supertalls' and compare us to China are just 'fanboys'. Anyone with any experience in planning knows that building height is pretty irrelevant when it comes to building functional communities. I suggest that, instead of looking at the dysfunctional hell that is shanghai for inspiration, we look at London or Berlin. In places like Hong Kong, high rise structures work fairly well because families are willing to live in them and space is provided for them to do so. These developments currently being proposed in Toronto are so strongly geared to a transitory class of young urban professionals, that we are condemning parts of the city to never reaching proper urban maturity. This model simultaneously isolates suburbs from new ideas (see NY).

How many people though are arguing for Toronto to be geared to "transitory class of yuppies" though?

The development seen as emblematic of this is almost entirely located next to the CBD. Not to sound defeatist, but where on Earth do you see families living in great numbers right in the middle of the CBD? Absolutely nowhere, period. Generally, the only people who would benefit from living at a place like 1 Yonge are transitory urban professionals. It's not automatically a failure of urban planning to accept that certain demographics will value living within walking distance of the Financial District more than others.

The question of whether Toronto is family friendly is very valid and its a worthwhile debate, but it seems odd to focus on places like 1 Yonge, Mirvish-Gehry or wherever. Unless we started offering huge subsidies for families to live downtown, anything built at 1 Yonge would never focus on family units in the same way that no project 500m from Waterloo Station, Shinjuku Station, Grand Central or Millennium Station ever would. If anything, the issue elsewhere would be housing for childless yuppies displacing potential premium office space.

 

[drum118]

How many people though are arguing for Toronto to be geared to "transitory class of yuppies" though?

The development seen as emblematic of this is almost entirely located next to the CBD. Not to sound defeatist, but where on Earth do you see families living in great numbers right in the middle of the CBD? Absolutely nowhere, period. Generally, the only people who would benefit from living at a place like 1 Yonge are transitory urban professionals. It's not automatically a failure of urban planning to accept that certain demographics will value living within walking distance of the Financial District more than others.

The question of whether Toronto is family friendly is very valid and its a worthwhile debate, but it seems odd to focus on places like 1 Yonge, Mirvish-Gehry or wherever. Unless we started offering huge subsidies for families to live downtown, anything built at 1 Yonge would never focus on family units in the same way that no project 500m from Waterloo Station, Shinjuku Station, Grand Central or Millennium Station ever would. If anything, the issue elsewhere would be housing for childless yuppies displacing potential premium office space.

I will disagree with you as families have the same right to live in this area as yuppies. In fact, that is grounds for discrimination under our laws.

There is nothing stopping families buying more than one unit with a knockout wall for them as well larger unit size.

Some families don't have 2 working partners with one staying at home or working from home.

Developers are starting to see the light by building family units now. With the city (cities) now starting to force 10% ratio for families, there will be more of them on the market.

At the same time, with the removal of cheap housing in the core, you are forcing people to move further out of the area and spend hours on transit to service the yuppies. The yuppies want their cake and eat it at the same time with no thought about others than themselves.

I am for supper tall building so long they are done right and blend into the surrounding area. I wanted to see a 100+ storey building for decades and we may have one in the next 20 years in our skyline.

The big problem for this area is infrastructure other than roads, but most of all is hydro. You need a power plant in the area somewhere let along for other parts of the city to service the growing needs as well not relying on the out dated transmission system.

With families you need schools, playgrounds and etc.

Using transit in this area is out of the question under TTC current vision for Union Station Loop where walking will be the way of life.

I don't see any reason at this time why this development should not get off the ground until I see the rendering and plans for it. Why stop at 98 and not go for that 100+ here??

With the amount of foot traffic coming, its time to think what roads/streets do we close off to traffic so people can safety walk to/from where they are going to. Bay is #1 south of Queen St years ago.

 

[Automation Gallery]

Gee,nothing that we dont already know.... it seems like they are getting their info from UT

This report Fri Jan 04, 2013.
CONDOMINIUM APARTMENT BLDGS, OFFICES, RETAIL
Proj: 9170639-1
Toronto, Metro Toronto Reg ON
PREPARING PLANS
1 Yonge St, M5E 1W7
$100,000,000 est
Note:
This project is very preliminary. Scope of work is subject to change. Applications for rezoning have not yet been submitted. Further update spring 2013.
Project:
development which will include a 98-storey tower, a 92-storey tower, two 70-storey towers and a 30 storey office building. The existing office building on this site will be retained.
Scope:
98 storeys; 5 structures
Development: New
Category: Apartment bldgs; Commercial offices; Retail, wholesale services; Restaurants

 

[adma]

anyone else notice citigo ergo's original post has been deleted? I think he might be in trouble..

*Cogito* ergo. "Citigo" sounds like a sign in Boston (or like Michael Jackson's skin condition)

 

[CityPlaceN1]

Gee,nothing that we dont already know.... it seems like they are getting their info from UT

Lots of people are. See the Star piece from the weekend that quoted Urban Toronto? Scooped on their own door front.

 

[diminutive]

I will disagree with you as families have the same right to live in this area as yuppies. In fact, that is grounds for discrimination under our laws.

There is nothing stopping families buying more than one unit with a knockout wall for them as well larger unit size.

I never said families don't have the right to live in this area, but that under given circumstances very few families would choose to live here. Just like very few families would choose to live in, say, London's Square Mile. At 600-700$ per square foot these buildings are cost prohibitive for many families. And even if they could afford it, most would still choose to live varying distances from the downtown core and have one or both parents commute.

I don't see the problem with neighborhoods attracting different demographics. Obviously the City as a whole needs to be mixed use but warehousing 8 year olds doesn't seem like an efficient use of CBD land. Nowhere on Earth I can think of has a sizable population of families on a site like 1 Yonge.

 

[balenciaga]

I never said families don't have the right to live in this area, but that under given circumstances very few families would choose to live here. Just like very few families would choose to live in, say, London's Square Mile. At 600-700$ per square foot these buildings are cost prohibitive for many families. And even if they could afford it, most would still choose to live varying distances from the downtown core and have one or both parents commute.

I don't see the problem with neighborhoods attracting different demographics. Obviously the City as a whole needs to be mixed use but warehousing 8 year olds doesn't seem like an efficient use of CBD land. Nowhere on Earth I can think of has a sizable population of families on a site like 1 Yonge.

right, since families are not interested in living downtown, why are people always complaining downtown condos are not "family friendly"?
Plus, why does DT have to be "family friendly"? Is the suburbs single-friendly with plenty of interesting restaurants, bars etc around?
Being family friendly is not the goal for every community. There are a stable percentage of people who are single and don't have kids and don't want to live in family friendly areas. We need to meet their needs as well.

 

[SP!RE]

There are plenty of people who would live with families downtown if they could. Not as many as choose to live in the suburbs, no. But don't be naive to think that NO families would like to live in an urban area.

It's simply unaffordable. We are letting developers built very few "family sized" units and then charge huge premiums for them. This comes back to the greater issue of housing costs in Toronto in general.

It doesn't have to be this way but there is little policy aimed at keeping housing affordable for everyone... in fact, it seems to be entirely up to what the market dictates with almost no intervention from the government. Until this changes, there will be areas of high income and areas that are completely poor; areas with many families and areas without. Homogenized zones.

I am not convinced nearly enough is being done to combat this. (See "The Three Cities Within Toronto" for further info.).

http://www.urbancentre.utoronto.ca/pdfs/curp/tnrn/Three-Cities-Within-Toronto-2010-Final.pdf

 

[Mike in TO]

It's simply unaffordable. We are letting developers built very few "family sized" units and then charge huge premiums for them. This comes back to the greater issue of housing costs in Toronto in general.

Developers are generally not charging "huge premiums" - they are simply charging the same per square foot cost and additional floor height premiums as other units. The issue is that the final cost based on providing a large unit is simply going to be much more expensive and generally out of reach for most middle income families - which is why developers generally are not providing many of these units - they are almost always the slowest units to be absorbed due to lack of demand at the price points in the current market. Even if the city implements 10% family-sized unit policies, it doesn't mean these units are going to sell (they often don't).

 

[TrickyRicky]

Sp!re, perhaps intervening in market forces should be our goal. However, I think the point I was making and is mirrored in the statements of diminutive and others is that a progressive policy applied universally is not necessarily appropriate or progressive for an individual project in question. I'm not letting developers, including Pinnacle at this 1 Yonge site of the hook. I fully support and trust that the city would enforce market intervention on say the Don lands development just to the West. But here at 1 Yonge I don't see this as ever being a sustainable mixed use neighbourhood where interventionist policy would be effective or desirable.

It's like the idiom if all you have is a hammer everything starts looking like a nail. This might be a controversial idea but in a way I think cities benefit from having areas that are rich, poor, family friendly, and family unfriendly. We don't want this polarization to get out of control but in a way polarization is precisely the function, the essence of what a city is.

 

[Big Daddy]

Developers are generally not charging "huge premiums" - they are simply charging the same per square foot cost and additional floor height premiums as other units. The issue is that the final cost based on providing a large unit is simply going to be much more expensive and generally out of reach for most middle income families - which is why developers generally are not providing many of these units - they are almost always the slowest units to be absorbed due to lack of demand at the price points in the current market. Even if the city implements 10% family-sized unit policies, it doesn't mean these units are going to sell (they often don't).

Oh, well I guess you're right - since larger "family size" units are unaffordable by all but the wealthiest families, I guess these families can take a hike. Push them out to the suburbs, who needs 'em anyway? However, 90% or more of our young singles and couples eventually have children, so ultimately they must all move to the suburbs to raise their families. I suppose though that this ends up being one of the main drivers for the whole commuting issue so maybe they should start building more office space in the suburbs or something - or tell people to stop having families?

 

[ttk77]

Are there any cities around the world of Toronto's calibre or higher that have unit sizes and affordability in their cores that are attractive to families? The only thing that strikes me as particularly different between NA and Europe is the format of the suburbs which tend to be much denser and far more accessible via public transit overseas. I'm not saying that striving for a more diverse mix in the core isn't a worthy cause, but it's probably an uphill battle.

 

[TonyV]

Why can't we get a tower with a beautiful crown? I'm tired of seeing one flat top after another. Nothing beats the beauty of a crown like the one on the Chrysler Building. A few distinctive crowns would make a world of difference to our skyline. (along with some decorative lighting)

Essentially, I agree with you. But rather than a spire, how about an irregular prism, or a series of jagged angles, rising about 120 storeys, hovering above all the flat tops of downtown. Or perhaps think Bank of America, yet more angular. Such a thing would be more Toronto than a spire.

Just musing. It's time to give everyone a break from the totally rectilinear stuff we're getting these days. At least Pontarini is trying, though.

 

[Mike in TO]

However, 90% or more of our young singles and couples eventually have children, so ultimately they must all move to the suburbs to raise their families.

It isn't necessarily an either/or issue of suburbs vs a condo right in the downtown core - there are lots of options in between. The issue on the condo side downtown, is that a 1250 square foot unit at $650/$700 a square foot is going to be in the $850K range plus any upgrades or parking should that family decide they require one car. That same family could acquire a modest ground oriented home with three or four bedrooms, street parking and a small backyard in some of the neighbourhoods immediately surrounding the downtown core... Toronto is blessed as a city of neighbourhoods that we have many beautiful communities within the old city of Toronto that provide all the benefits of urban living.

So from a value proposition point of view, even if they could afford it I would suggest that most average couples with two kids looking to live in the city would rather spend their $850k on a home in Riverdale, Cabbagetown, Little Italy etc rather than on a two bedroom condo - I'm not suggesting there are no families looking for condo options, but that there are significant barriers to affordability given all the input costs of providing that type of housing in a large format suitable for families.

 

[balenciaga]

There are plenty of people who would live with families downtown if they could. Not as many as choose to live in the suburbs, no. But don't be naive to think that NO families would like to live in an urban area.

It's simply unaffordable. We are letting developers built very few "family sized" units and then charge huge premiums for them. This comes back to the greater issue of housing costs in Toronto in general.

It doesn't have to be this way but there is little policy aimed at keeping housing affordable for everyone... in fact, it seems to be entirely up to what the market dictates with almost no intervention from the government. Until this changes, there will be areas of high income and areas that are completely poor; areas with many families and areas without. Homogenized zones.

I am not convinced nearly enough is being done to combat this. (See "The Three Cities Within Toronto" for further info.).

http://www.urbancentre.utoronto.ca/pdfs/curp/tnrn/Three-Cities-Within-Toronto-2010-Final.pdf

downtown is more desirable. When something is more desirable, it tends to be more expensive and not accesible for everyone who wants it, why do you think it is wrong? You think most families should be able to afford a 3bd condo/townhouse right in downtown? How much land do you think downtown has? Are there any 6M+ cities with a vibrant but affordable downtown to average families in the world?

On the other hand, there is plenty of family friendly housing not too far from downtown that are hardly as expensive. Families should learn to live on compact space. For example, 1000-1200 sf for a family of 4 is more than enough. Sometimes it is not about housing being too expensive, it is about families want too much space. We all think European cities are nice and work well, do we see how much space they families get their in major cities?