[balenciaga]

wrt shortage of land around the financial district, I wonder when we will start seeing developers buy every residential and commercial unit inside an existing mid-rise condo to it knock down and build something taller

midrise condos are fine. doing the same to our lowrise stock would be wise.

 

[Conrad Black]

Not a lot of low rise left in the core.

 

[Oliver Tweed]

I was just reading the thread about the 6-storey condo in the Beach. To me, that kind of development (which is in line with what I think is called the city's "Avenues" plan or something like that) is far more family friendly than downtown skyscrapers. I’m not advocating one over the other, but I think smaller mid-rise developments in less dense neighbourhoods with more public space, green space and nearby amenities will be more popular to people with kids than some downtown neighbourhoods.

Problem is, there is resistance to midrise development in Toronto’s sleepy neighbourhoods like the Beach. People want to preserve the quiet way of life they’ve known since they were kids despite the transformation taking place around the city. This is detrimental to the city’s vibrancy and economic health. In my view there is enormous unused capacity along transit routes in established neighbourhoods for mid-rise housing. The Bloor-Danforth subway line east of Broadview, for example, has almost none at the moment and it’s not obvious to me why. The Beach development appears to have been pretty well thought out and executed (so far) yet my understanding is that it was fought tooth and nail.

Somehow this post became a rant about NIMBYism. Not sure how to wrap up here.

Go Leafs!

 

[balenciaga]

Not a lot of low rise left in the core.

I walk in the core very frequently, and yes, there are a LOT of buildings under 3 storeys tall, if by the core we mean between Spadina Ave and Jarvis st. Don't believe me? Let me show you

Between University and Spadina
Huron St http://goo.gl/maps/ozgVf - this particularly will make you think you are in US midwest, not downtown Toronto, honestly...
D'arcy St http://goo.gl/maps/PaX1R
Grandge Pl http://goo.gl/maps/L1PsV
Beverly st http://goo.gl/maps/DpV3Z

Between Yonge and Jarvis
McGill St http://goo.gl/maps/9k1om
Maitland st http://goo.gl/maps/u5jcg
Dundonald st http://goo.gl/maps/lL7x6

I find the area between College/Queen west of University and between Gerrard/Wellesley east of Yonge has the largest stock of low rises houses. These should target higher density, after south of Queen and Yonge st are developed.

 

[interchange42]

Most people consider the core to be a much smaller subset of downtown that what you've listed above. The core is essentially the centre of the downtown, like the dozen or so blocks centred around King and Bay.

42

 

[Xray_Crystal_Junkie]

Just reread that Globe article and don't know how I skimmed over this beauty the first time:

A spokesperson for the York Quay Neighbourhood Association told Global News that she is worried about the economic viability of the area as a tourist attraction when proposed developments bring thousands more people into the two block radius.

 

[caltrane74]

Yes, but its the largest and most over-capacity transit hub in the country.

When complete, Union Station will be able to handle 800,000 passangers per day. Right now it probably handles less than 350,000 people per day.

 

[Ramako]

Most people consider the core to be a much smaller subset of downtown that what you've listed above. The core is essentially the centre of the downtown, like the dozen or so blocks centred around King and Bay.

42

Indeed. I'd say that "downtown" more or less include everything from the lake to Yorkville and from Bathurst to Parliament, but that the "core" is about Queen to Front (or perhaps Lakeshore) and Victoria to Simcoe, though it's certainly expanding.

 

[brockm]

Uh-oh. The York Quay Resident Association isn't going to like this proposal one bit.

It will, among other things:
1. Crowd the sidewalks.
2. Overload <insert infrastructure item here>
3. Increase crime.
4. Destroy the Earth.
5. Cause cancer among existing waterfront residents.
6. Lead to World War III.
7. Increase unemployment or something.
8. Make us more like NYC ... *gasp*
9. Create a parking disaster.
10. Curve the spine of babies and toddlers, leaving them deformed and disabled for the rest of their lives.

and my all-time favourite (this one an *actual* argument advanced by the YQRA in opposition to another development): it will block the view of the CN Tower for tourists, undermining our tourist industry ...

In other words, whatever sh*t you can make up -- yeah, that's the reason this must be stopped.

 

[TrickyRicky]

An interesting conversation. I wanted to add a point I often add: Toronto is geographically vast. I think we tend to over-exaggerate issues when we forget how vast it really is relative to international peer cities. Toronto as a whole is too low density to even maintain a minimum level of service, commercial activity, and residential up keep. However, the low-density nature of the whole does not mean that an individual site may be excessively dense for it's context. I live in a low-rise house with a back-yard and garage and ample room just outside 4 km from this site. This is an economic and social impossibility in any large major international city outside North America. We have a LONG way to go before we can talk about affordabilty or land constraints in the central city.

 

[Oliver Tweed]

Just reread that Globe article and don't know how I skimmed over this beauty the first time:

That is a gem.

"How am I supposed to effectively run this tourist attraction when all these friggin' people keep coming?"

 

[Big Daddy]

When complete, Union Station will be able to handle 800,000 passangers per day. Right now it probably handles less than 350,000 people per day.

Yes, But this does nothing to help with the over-capacity on the Yonge/University subway line - Which is where most of those 800,000 people are heading.

 

[innsertnamehere]

according to wikipedia, 102,540 people use the union station subway stop today. that is less than one third of the total usage of the station, with the rest belonging to GO. plus the station is going to be doubled in capacity with the extra platform when finished. (though not the trains themselves)

and at the same time, it is physically impossible to be going southbound from union, meaning this will do nothing but add usage to the relatively empty northbound trains in the morning and southbound trains at night. (short: this will not strain the subway in any greater way than it currently is)

edit: here is a pdf that shows ridership numbers for all subway stops in the ttc system:

interesting to note that union handles less than half of what bloor-yonge does.

http://www.ttc.ca/PDF/Transit_Planning/Subway%20ridership%202011-2012.pdf

 

[000]

The Toronto Club (107 Wellington W) is prime real estate in the core and underutilised. It should be dozed and have offices and condos built on top with the facade preserved like HSBC has done across the street. Frankly I'm surprised it has flown under the radar so long while Concert snapped up a property like 88 Scott.

 

[DavidJamesTO]

Yes, But this does nothing to help with the over-capacity on the Yonge/University subway line - Which is where most of those 800,000 people are heading.

Hence all the talk about a Downtown Relief Line. Should relieve a fair bit of pressure.