AlvinofDiaspar said:
A significant portion of New York City have height and dynamism, and is viable in the long term due to the intensity of local activity. These characteristics need not be mutually exclusive - they are dependent upon the urban context in which they exist.
Click to expand...

There's very few (if any) residential towers in NY as high and as close together as they are being built and/or proposed in this part of Toronto.

Except these are not stand-alone towers, nor does these towers preclude other, differently scaled neighbourhoods from being constructed in the city. It's not an "either or" you've made it out to be.
Click to expand...

That's what they said when they approved TIFF Bell Lightbox in the entertainment district, and it effectively proved to be a go-ahead for developers trying to equal the height of that tower.

Perhaps, but would you call Hong Kong an example of uncreative retail that "fails to unleash the benefits of the added density above"? Furthermore, do you think that this prime site, if built to "human scale", would create anything but even bigger pressures to be immediately successful and catering to all but the most affluent (think Central Paris)?
Click to expand...

I haven't been to Hong Kong, but it definitely seems like the case, yes. My friend desperately wants to start a pub in HK because he says that the whole place is pretty much under-served by retail - unfortunately for him start-up costs are astronomical.

I think we are so far away from a Central Paris type of situation we don't need to worry about it at all at this stage.

All I'm advocating for is to use the current demand for units to build functional neighbourhoods that can be re-adapted in the future for larger families, etc. Building these towers as proposed, I believe - and willing to bet on it - will just serve a transient demographic who will inevitably become disenfranchised with the overcrowded high-stress lifestyle they provide.

Except that increasing retail without the density at a high cost site ultimately produces high risk of business failures - like, just how would you create "independently owned retail units" who can at the same time afford exorbitant rent in a successful downtown neighbourhood?
Click to expand...

By having longer retail strips with more units it is possible to earmark more retail spots as mandatory non-franchised businesses. It's been done in places and works pretty well. It also helps surrounding chains by turning the neighbourhood into more of a destination.

If the number of people/retail is higher stake-holders are much less likely to agree to such solutions.

You can always put more retail indoors or underground, but that sort of ambiance is more conducive to depression than to a vibrant healthy community.
 
There's very few (if any) residential towers in NY as high and as close together as they are being built and/or proposed in this part of Toronto.
Click to expand...

Office towers are by their very nature even less engaging due to their function - and just what does residential use has anything to do with height, tower spacing and vitality?

That's what they said when they approved TIFF Bell Lightbox in the entertainment district, and it effectively proved to be a go-ahead for developers trying to equal the height of that tower.
Click to expand...

Unlike King West, the site/area in question is practically a tabula rasa. Given what I have said, and I quote - "preclude other, differently scaled neighbourhoods from being constructed in the city" - you are basically arguing that approving this project (or TIFF) will keep EBF, WDL and Regent Park from acquiring a more intimate favour. That is indefensible.

I haven't been to Hong Kong, but it definitely seems like the case, yes. My friend desperately wants to start a pub in HK because he says that the whole place is pretty much under-served by retail - unfortunately for him start-up costs are astronomical.
Click to expand...

Hong Kong is underserved by retail? You have got-to-be-kidding-me.

I think we are so far away from a Central Paris type of situation we don't need to worry about it at all at this stage.
Click to expand...

Actually our pattern of urban development (i.e. high value in the core) has far more in common with European and Asian experiences than the typical North American hollowing out of the core.

All I'm advocating for is to use the current demand for units to build functional neighbourhoods that can be re-adapted in the future for larger families, etc. Building these towers as proposed, I believe - and willing to bet on it - will just serve a transient demographic who will inevitably become disenfranchised with the overcrowded high-stress lifestyle they provide.
Click to expand...

Then advocate that the towers be designed in a manner that is conductive to units being merged, and/or dedicate a portion to units with more bedrooms and/or socioeconomic group. That's not a built form issue.

By having longer retail strips with more units it is possible to earmark more retail spots as mandatory non-franchised businesses. It's been done in places and works pretty well. It also helps surrounding chains by turning the neighbourhood into more of a destination.
Click to expand...

What? So you want the city to get involved in the business of a) determining whether retail are non-franchised and b) earmarking retail spots in private developments on the basis of such? What of non-franchised and yet uber high end stores? Those are ok? Seriously, as someone who isn't necessarily against government intervention even I find that extremely heavy-handed.

You can always put more retail indoors or underground, but that sort of ambiance is more conducive to depression than to a vibrant healthy community.
Click to expand...

I think we should do a survey of say, those at Eaton Centre and, I don't know, the Queen West stretch of Parkdale and see whether this has any objective truth to it.

AoD
 
And as an aside, I found the towers having a futuristic flavour remarkably similar to those in the future SF in the new Trek movie.

AoD
 
People who live higher up in buildings and experience crowding regularly are more likely to present anti-social behaviour, less likely to leave home, etc. This is true for residential towers but not necessarily for office towers.

The history of Toronto's current boom is one of precedents dictating heights. I feel that the future development of a mid-rise waterfront neighbourhood directly to the east of this site may be jeopardised.

Hong Kong may be underserved by retail not because there aren't vast amounts of it, but because its population could maybe support even more if this weren't limited by its built-form. As I said though, this I gather from people who are trying to open a business in HK and have been frustrated by astronomical rents.

European and Asian cities don't usually have to deal with the sprawl that we do, however. The sprawling and centralised nature of our city means we currently have overcrowding in the core and super low densities around it, while simultaneously having to accommodate hundreds of thousands of commuters coming downtown from far away. I don't think there's any need to allow extreme residential heights here, and we could just as well make the core more accessible by building mid-rise neighbourhoods around it. Most of the overcrowding in the area is caused by suburban commuters.

Dynamism isn't just about merging units. Right now it's easier in a mid-rise building to: install green roofs, provide bicycle parking, add communal gardening areas, retro-fit the parking area to support electric cars, convert a residential building to office and vice-versa, demolish, etc. We don't know what the future will bring, but it will likely be easier to adapt to it by embracing a more dynamic built-form.

I do want the city to help create spaces for local non-corporate entrepreneurs. High-end non-franchised stores are fine by me, and I doubt landlords would complain about them and wish for a starbucks instead. This is off-topic though.

Regarding indoor retail:

Let's do a survey of people who work long hours in the PATH and compare that to people who work long hours in an equivalent victorian retail strip.
 
I dont think we have to worry. These will never even be a hole in the ground. The best looking projects ever preposed for Toronto never make a shovel to the ground. But if they had, Toronto would have had one amazing skyline. hmm future project for someone to make a render of the toronto that could be by now.
 
I'm not sure I agree.....given Pinnacle's track record, we may actually see these rise before Oxford or Mirvish/Gehry....just my opinion...

/and anyone arguing against highrise density at this location - is just misguided imo...
 
RC8 said:
Hong Kong may be underserved by retail not because there aren't vast amounts of it, but because its population could maybe support even more if this weren't limited by its built-form. As I said though, this I gather from people who are trying to open a business in HK and have been frustrated by astronomical rents.
Click to expand...

For a place where entrepreneurial spirit is the life source of the city's engine ever since its conception, there is certainly no shortage of retail. I would even consider HK to be the world's most capitalist society, pure economics in its rawest form. Where proverbial mom and pop's have been finding ways to make a living, even in closet sized shops that make Pacific Mall cubicles look generous. Quality of retail is a subjective and culturally relative matter. As with most city's in Asia, western style retail establishments are considered a luxury status. There are plenty and a growing number of areas that cater to expat "gweilos". The prestige of these places such as Lan Kwai Fong, Soho, or Stanley Market compounds the premium that need to be paid. Rents are astronomical for everybody there, not just for foreigners looking to set up a new trendy spot. Speaking of which, I visited a surprising chic French restaurant on the 14th floor of an obscure commercial building in Causeway Bay a couple years ago. Goes to show that retail lives and breathes in every nook and cranny possible in HK.
 
Last edited:
yyzer said:
...given Pinnacle's track record, we may actually see these rise before Oxford or Mirvish/Gehry....just my opinion...
Click to expand...

Totally agree. As soon as this was announced, I thought that of the three mega projects right downtown, that this would be the relatively "easiest" to approve and to move forward with construction.
 
RC8 said:
People who live higher up in buildings and experience crowding regularly are more likely to present anti-social behaviour, less likely to leave home, etc. This is true for residential towers but not necessarily for office towers.
Click to expand...

Evidence please. You have this habit of making declarations about the social behaviour of people in a context where a million other factors are at play. It was the same with the 'casinos cause crime' argument you put forth in that other thread. I have never heard of a study that makes the link between the height of an apartment and some measure of 'antisocial behaviour' - whatever that was. If there is a link, it's probably muddied by a million other things.

The history of Toronto's current boom is one of precedents dictating heights. I feel that the future development of a mid-rise waterfront neighbourhood directly to the east of this site may be jeopardised.
Click to expand...

There's a precedence of setting taller heights, but no precedence of those heights affecting adjacent neighbourhoods. Last time I checked, Granby and McGill street, directly across from the 75 storey Aura, are still rows of 2 storey townhomes with no applications to demolish them and replace them with towers.

Hong Kong may be underserved by retail not because there aren't vast amounts of it, but because its population could maybe support even more if this weren't limited by its built-form. As I said though, this I gather from people who are trying to open a business in HK and have been frustrated by astronomical rents.
Click to expand...

Listen, Hong Kong is not underserved by retail of any kind, whether it's "high end" fashion or "low end" vegetable markets and food. And often they don't compete for space with each other. In a neighbourhood like Central, you could walk out of a clothing store with prices higher than anything in Yorkville and be confronted with a market scene that makes Chinatown look like Pusateri's. You should probably go there before you make baseless assumptions.

Right now it's easier in a mid-rise building to: install green roofs, provide bicycle parking, add communal gardening areas, retro-fit the parking area to support electric cars, convert a residential building to office and vice-versa, demolish, etc. We don't know what the future will bring, but it will likely be easier to adapt to it by embracing a more dynamic built-form.
Click to expand...

Really? Again, show me the evidence. Are you quoting your 'facts' from pro formas you helped write? How does a midrise condo make it intrinsically easier to do anything you just said? A lot of that stuff is difficult to do because it's economically prohibitive, no matter what, or because laws and ownership structure make it difficult - it has nothing to do with height. For example, converting half of the units from condominium ownership to commercial real estate would face exactly the same legal and logistical hurdles - getting approval from the condo board and its voting members, having enough owner occupiers willing to sell, etc. - in a 7 storey building as it would in a 70 storey building; how is building bicycle parking - which is basically just a cage - any more difficult to install in the parking garage of a high rise than a mid-rise? If there aren't electric parking stalls in a condo building, maybe it's because it's a horrible return-on-investment gimmick, and not because the building it's in is tall.


Regarding indoor retail:

Let's do a survey of people who work long hours in the PATH and compare that to people who work long hours in an equivalent victorian retail strip.
Click to expand...

Survey of what?
 
The survey comment and the rest of my post was in response to AoD's post above. I speculate that people working in the PATH will report lower levels of well-being than people working in an equivalent Victorian retail strip.

I provided enormous amounts of evidence for both points you raise (casino and crime link and height + overcrowding and anti-social behaviour) and I've just stopped quoting it since no matter how often I brought it up people couldn't even go a page back. Look it up, it's out there.

TIFF BLB was supposedly not even going to affect zoning within the neighbourhood. Everyone assured us of it. But it did. I'm not worried about Cabbage Town or The Annex, but I do worry about the waterfront community immediately east of this site.

I don't know about HK, hence I said 'may' and 'maybe'. I do know from various health stats that whatever they are doing in HK is healthier and better than western suburbs, but that doesn't mean it is necessarily optimal. The same is true for Manhattan.

Regarding the dynamism of mid-rise buildings, I'm talking simply from the experience of living in mid-rise buildings for years and very easily changing stuff around, versus living in high-rise buildings for years and finding it pretty much impossible to effect change. If you do a bit of research into the history of urban re-purposing of things you'll see that re-purposing of high rises is monstrously difficult compared to any other built-form. It is objectively much easier to re-adapt a mid-rise built-form than a high-rise built form in virtually every way. Getting 40 landowners to agree to sell their properties is much easier than getting 400, for instance. Bicycle parking for people in a mid-rise building may entail the removal of two parking spots, whereas in a high-rise in may require the removal of 15 or more, with each parking spot being considerably more valuable in the first place.

If there is one value which we absolutely must embrace in the built-form we choose to build now, in my opinion, it is dynamism and potential for future re-purposing. This, I believe, necessarily involves building at scales that are relatively independent from all modes of motorised transport and that do not require massive investments for change or maintenance. In the long term, we basically can't go wrong if we adhere to the principle of building dynamic people-friendly communities.
 
AlbertC said:
Thanks for sharing those, there's definitely some new renderings in there. This image showing the massing density structures in the area with development potential of LCBO site is especially striking.
Click to expand...

It also shows two new towers around the Harbour Commission building
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top