[RC8]

The line of reasoning used by those arguing for this type of density is so very similar to that typical of people who lobby for urban sprawl.

As if it was a virtue for a tower to be tall. As if there wasn't a threshold when excessive density correlates very negatively to living standards. Screw well-being and screw functional neighbourhoods, what we need is taller towers/bigger houses!

 

[Big Daddy]

I on the other hand consider it a sin to build anything new lower than 30 stories in the core (between Jarvis and Spadina). Let's stop trying making Toronto a quaint European kind of midrise city. It will never be. And what is human scale? People interpret it differently.

What's the fuss about schools? We pretend that families would want to live at 1 Yonge st, but are they?
Evan there are schools and parks around, will many families really be interested in buying a 2-3 bedroom condo on the 35th floor for $600K at 1 Yonge, plus $600 maintenance fees each month? Before making sure of that, it is pointless trying to make it "family-friendly". If you have $600k to spend, will you live at 1 Yonge in a 950sf 2 bedroom condo?

Not every neighbourhood in Toronto needs to be "family-friendly". Non-family people are as important as families. We need districts that are intentionally family-unfriendly too because many of us are not interested in a quiet family-friendly hood with nothing but dog parks, schools and grocery stores, which seems to be all families care about, and 1 Yonge definitely doesn't have to family friendly. The city of Toronto is not just about families and kids.

I do take issue with this line of argument. One of the big problems with our condo boom is the lack of family oriented housing. This will be something that will come back to haunt us. Building a city just for temporary and/or transient living space of one and two bedroom condos is just wrong. Some will argue that the three bedroom apartments don't sell - and this is true for two reasons 1) the unuits are too expensive for young families and 2) these buyers are typically investors who dont give a damn about the long term livability of the city, only the immediate return on their investment.

This will be something we will have to deal wilth down the road for sure. As people choose to have families, they are forced to move to the suburbs.

 

[Northern Magus]

It's good to know that single people downtown can just be thrown into any old condo pit. They don't need food at family oriented grocery stores or sunlight/air from those pesky parks. Now that's cost efficient.

 

[khris]

It's good to know that single people downtown can just be thrown into any old condo pit. They don't need food at family oriented grocery stores or sunlight/air from those pesky parks. Now that's cost efficient.

Family oriented grocery stores? What are those? I see families shopping at Longo's just down the street from here, and same thing at the Loblaws at Jarvis and Queen's Quay. I mean, if that's what you're referring to.

And parks? Toronto Islands is literally across the harbour from the development. Sherbourne Common just down the street.

 

[urbandreamer]

You could argue the lake itself is a huge "park." Sure you need a boat to access it but if you're into the waterfront lifestyle you'd love it.

 

[bleu]

T As if there wasn't a threshold when excessive density correlates very negatively to living standards.

There definitely is, however, downtown Toronto is not remotely near it. Maybe when downtown population is doubled or tripped, we can talk about "excessive density" and how it negatively affects living standards.

On the other hand, very low density in the Toronto suburbs also correlates very negatively to living standards. When I say suburbs, I mean areas north of Eglinton, west of Keele and east of Coxwell/don mills, not just the 905.

 

[bleu]

Plus, only a fool would think that people settled without kids and a spouse would care about parks, and grocery stores. Nope, just somewhere to sleep and bang, then go to work.

I am slighted disgusted by this.
So only people with kids care about the city, parks and grocery stores? Really? I am single and I go to grocery stores every week. Being close to a grocery store is the first thing I consider when moving to a place. And didn't I complain many times about the lack of a great urban park in Toronto? I don't give a flying ass about nightclubs and bars.

Let's not try to argue having kids is some sort of superior lifestyle. A city needs family friendly areas. But if a city is family friendly everywhere, it will be such a horribly boring city!

 

[urbandreamer]

West of Keele has poor living standards?!

You are utterly and hopelessly clueless. I am happy people like you are clueless--High Park is paradise compared to City Place.

 

[RiverCity1]

Yes, west of Keele does have poor living standards. The low-end neighbourhoods of High Park, Bloor West Village, Swansea, Baby Point, Old Mill, Kingsway...the list goes on and on of places you really don't want to visit at night...or even in the day for that matter. Very stetchy. Someone really should tell people not to buy the $1M homes here or shop along Bloor West. The street isn't vibrant at all. And crime is unreal here. Stay away

 

[brockm]

I am local resident and I like the project. My question is, how those thousands of new people are going to move around ? The traffic is horrible as it is, without even the new buildings finished and occupied.

By not driving, hopefully.

 

[brockm]

It's good to know that single people downtown can just be thrown into any old condo pit. They don't need food at family oriented grocery stores or sunlight/air from those pesky parks. Now that's cost efficient.

What is a "family oriented grocery store"? You're obviously disqualifying the Loblaw's two blocks away. The Kitchen Table across the street. The Sobey's at Queen's Quay Terminal. The Longo's at Maple Leaf Square. The Metro in the St. Lawrence Market.

OMG. Where will the families shop for food!?!?!?

I like this though. This proves my point about the anti-change people. They don't actually have any reasonable arguments. They just don't like change. It upsets them. It causes fear.

The funny thing is that I find that some of the people most opposed to downtown condos actually live in the suburbs. Like members of my family out in Burlington, who go into a flying fit about at the condo development in downtown Toronto. They want it stopped. It literally offends them in some way that they can't actually put their finger on.

They usually then end up in a conversation about how terrible the traffic along the QEW is and how much better life would be if it was like 12 lanes in each direction.

Part of me thinks that deep down its about how tied to car culture some people are. Even in this thread, someone was complaining about car traffic in the area. Yet, of course, density is exactly the solution to the problems of car culture. Most people I know who live in the area south Front Street, actually walk and take transit -- I include myself.

But I think that's the rub. People who are ensconced in car culture are afraid that this shift towards urban living is somehow threatening their cherished way of life -- which is driving everywhere.

This comes up by those Burlington and Oakville folks too. While I was arguing with people there about downtown living, they were complaining that more condos meant more pedestrians, which made it impossible to "make right turns" in downtown Toronto.

It ultimately all comes down to people wanting people get out of the way of their personal automobile. They just won't admit it.

 

[44 North]

The line of reasoning used by those arguing for this type of density is so very similar to that typical of people who lobby for urban sprawl.

As if it was a virtue for a tower to be tall. As if there wasn't a threshold when excessive density correlates very negatively to living standards. Screw well-being and screw functional neighbourhoods, what we need is taller towers/bigger houses!

Thanks for this. And your article in your link was quite good, and very relevant. Keep up the great work!

I am slighted disgusted by this.
So only people with kids care about the city, parks and grocery stores? Really? I am single and I go to grocery stores every week. Being close to a grocery store is the first thing I consider when moving to a place. And didn't I complain many times about the lack of a great urban park in Toronto? I don't give a flying ass about nightclubs and bars.

Let's not try to argue having kids is some sort of superior lifestyle. A city needs family friendly areas. But if a city is family friendly everywhere, it will be such a horribly boring city!

I was being sarcastic, facetious, and using reverse psychology. And all things considered, I was replying to your posting where you wrote:
We need districts that are intentionally family-unfriendly too because many of us are not interested in a quiet family-friendly hood with nothing but dog parks, schools and grocery stores, which seems to be all families care about,

According to you many of "us" (non family residents) are not interested in parks and grocery stores; wouldn't you say you're disgusted by your own post?

 

[RC8]

But I think that's the rub. People who are ensconced in car culture are afraid that this shift towards urban living is somehow threatening their cherished way of life -- which is driving everywhere.

This comes up by those Burlington and Oakville folks too. While I was arguing with people there about downtown living, they were complaining that more condos meant more pedestrians, which made it impossible to "make right turns" in downtown Toronto.

It ultimately all comes down to people wanting people get out of the way of their personal automobile. They just won't admit it.

While higher densities lead a decrease in driving mode share, they also lead to an increase in the net amount of cars use in a particular area. All research strongly supports this.

If you, like I, want streets where pedestrians, cyclists, and transit have the right of way, huge towers and Asian-high-rise style density are not the way to go. We will end up with sidewalks clogged with pedestrians and streets clogged by cars (you only need a 5-10% driving mode share in a hyper dense area for Toronto-sized streets to be constantly clogged). We will be left breathing in the fumes, unable to ride our bikes, and forcing any transit expansion underground.

Allowing for the easy construction of mixed use mid-rise buildings and scattered 40 story ones with family sized units in the areas immediately adjacent to downtown would have the opposite effect. A similarly large amount of people would take transit, walk, or cycle, but they will do so on streets that aren't under the pressure of having to accommodate thousands of gas guzzling machines taking 21 square metres per person.

Sprawl is not a legitimate alternative obviously.

 

[bmiller]

Cities like Hong Kong have limited space for Urban sprawl, hence high rises to maximize the limited area. Toronto does not have this barrier, but government policy to build up instead of out to prevent urban sprawl is a McGoofy thing. They have limited the size of building lots, not just in the city, but in the small town I now live in. There is no reason a lot in a county bigger than Toronto with a population of 63000 people should be limited to building lots 50 by 90 but they are now the norm. The Liberal Green Belt is going to make the limited available space in the Golden Horseshoe more elevated than is believable.

 

[67Cup]

If you think the paving over of some of the best farmland in Canada is a desirable result, and if lengthy commutes by increasingly distant suburbanites, commutes fueled as they doubtless would be by fossil fuels, is also an acceptable consequence, by all means avoid any steps to minimize urban sprawl.