ShonTron

Moderator
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 24, 2007
Messages
11,256
Reaction score
5,910
I'm happy the city rejected this application, and I hope the OMB upholds the city's decision. I have lots of reasons why I don't like either the application (not so much the height though it is a concern with the school right there, but the type of housing planned and the cheap architecture) or the applicants.
 
Last edited:

ducati0000

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jan 30, 2008
Messages
615
Reaction score
1
Agree the design and height is not suitable for this location and the builder is known to make very very cheap units so this project would be all renters which does not hold well for a neighbourhood...
 

ProjectEnd

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
May 28, 2007
Messages
12,028
Reaction score
24,298
I see no problem with something this tall or even taller at the confluence of two streetcar lines, one of which being on a dedicated ROW. There is absolutely no case that this would be 'too tall' or 'too dense.' Like ShonTron, I have a much bigger problem with the Kirkor and the Wynn Group partnership.
 

salsa

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Sep 27, 2013
Messages
8,814
Reaction score
9,723
I see no problem with something this tall or even taller at the confluence of two streetcar lines, one of which being on a dedicated ROW. There is absolutely no case that this would be 'too tall' or 'too dense.' Like ShonTron, I have a much bigger problem with the Kirkor and the Wynn Group partnership.

Just because there's two streetcar lines doesn't mean it's ok to build a glass box that would ruin the low-rise character of the neighbourhood.
 
Last edited:

ShonTron

Moderator
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 24, 2007
Messages
11,256
Reaction score
5,910
Just because there's two streetcar lines doesn't mean it's ok to build a class box that would ruin the low-rise character of the neighbourhood.

A very tall condo at this location would definitely impact the neighbourhood. But I don't necessarily think a 15-25 floor condo would, if built right, using quality materials, with a good design that respects the adjacent land uses and character of Spadina and the neighbourhood.

The trouble was that this would be a cheap tower, designed by architects with a lousy track record, jammed full of students, proposed by a property owner/landlord with a sketchy reputation, replacing a SRO hotel for which some sort of alternate accomodations should, ethically, be found.
 

ducati0000

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jan 30, 2008
Messages
615
Reaction score
1
I see no problem with something this tall or even taller at the confluence of two streetcar lines, one of which being on a dedicated ROW. There is absolutely no case that this would be 'too tall' or 'too dense.' Like ShonTron, I have a much bigger problem with the Kirkor and the Wynn Group partnership.

wow like projectend said having a streetcar near by doesn't mean you can build anything you want from these sketchy builders.
 

greenleaf

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
May 17, 2007
Messages
2,641
Reaction score
1,708
Toronto Preservation Board to ask Heritage Preservation Services to review if the buildings are heritage:

"This report will make recommendations based on the evaluation of potential cultural heritage value of the property at 484 Spadina Avenue also known as the Waverley Hotel and the Silver Dollar Room.

Located on the west side of Spadina Avenue just north of College Street, this property contains the four-and-a-half storey Waverley Hotel (1916-17) and the one-and-a-half storey Silver Dollar Room (1957-8)."
 

ShonTron

Moderator
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 24, 2007
Messages
11,256
Reaction score
5,910
Not surprised. The move for heritage designation was an attempt to stall any approval of the Wynns' plan for this site. It isn't a building really worth saving for its heritage value.
 

ksun

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Dec 14, 2013
Messages
1,805
Reaction score
238
Just because there's two streetcar lines doesn't mean it's ok to build a glass box that would ruin the low-rise character of the neighbourhood.

put quality aside, how will a glass box "ruin" the neighbourhood? Does that mean College/Spadina is exclusive to those who can afford to have a low rise house there? Lowrise is not a character - it is just a way of human habitation.
if one loves lowrise character that much, move north of Bloor and preferable as far away from Yonge st as possible. There will be minimum threat of highrises.
Two streetlines is an excellent reason to densify - more people will have easy access to transit, why not? Plus it is not like those two story houses at College/Spadina is Beacon Hill or something. They are just average houses, not even pretty ones.
 

salsa

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Sep 27, 2013
Messages
8,814
Reaction score
9,723
put quality aside, how will a glass box "ruin" the neighbourhood? Does that mean College/Spadina is exclusive to those who can afford to have a low rise house there? Lowrise is not a character - it is just a way of human habitation.
if one loves lowrise character that much, move north of Bloor and preferable as far away from Yonge st as possible. There will be minimum threat of highrises.
Two streetlines is an excellent reason to densify - more people will have easy access to transit, why not? Plus it is not like those two story houses at College/Spadina is Beacon Hill or something. They are just average houses, not even pretty ones.

Why don't you take a walk over to College & University, Bay St, South Core, or the Entertainment district and tell me whether you think those places are more interesting, attractive, and likeable than low rise streets like College/Spadina and Queen. I'm all for more density, but some areas are simply not appropriate for tall buildings that stick out like a sore thumb. Yet somehow that's perfectly fine because there are two streetcar lines, so why not just demolish any building less than 20 storeys, until every storefront is replaced with a wall of glass filled with chain stores. Why not do the same on the Danforth, since there's a subway running underneath it. How about we let the developers finish off restaurant row as well, so that the last remaining smidgen of charm on King West is finally gone (because lalalalalalala close to Union station).

If I wanted to live in such a boring place, I would move to Mississauga or Liberty Village. But I'm not surprised that you like what Toronto is becoming.

Buildings are essentially for people to live or work in. The beauty is just an added benefit.

The entire Bathurst St is not urban, definitely among the worst one can do about a downtown street. It probably can pass as a street in Vaughan with hardly anything taller than 3 stories and worst of all, no retail at all.

what's to see beyond Bloor st, Church st and Spadina ave? it is just a huge flat land with low rise houses, just like what you will see in Dallas.
 
Last edited:

Lenser

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Dec 8, 2011
Messages
3,034
Reaction score
3,456
City:
Toronto
Save us from the tyranny of those who would impose their vision of a perfect Toronto on the rest of us!
 

Conrad Black

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jul 20, 2007
Messages
1,939
Reaction score
71
City:
Toronto
Why don't you take a walk over to College & University, Bay St, South Core, or the Entertainment district and tell me whether you think those places are more interesting, attractive, and likeable than low rise streets like College/Spadina and Queen.

Its not the tall buildings that suck but how they meet the street. Improve the street elements and you won't even notice the tower above.
 

Lenser

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Dec 8, 2011
Messages
3,034
Reaction score
3,456
City:
Toronto
True. The height should not make a difference as long as the street-level experience is rich and engaging. Too often that fails to happen, but that's at least partially a street/urban culture issue, not solely the fault of developers.
 

Top