[ksun]

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.

and also lowrise buildings don't automatically guarantee street liveliness either. Lowrise take many forms, could be just a residential house, or a Burger King, or 711, or a Scotiabank, another CIBC. None of this is "interesting", and it is exactly what the intersection of Spadina and College has.

Spadina/College is definitely not an interesting non-chain retail spot, and I doubt a 22 story rental will make it worse. Why is a 22 story condo with a burger King/CIBC on the ground level any worse than ... just a two story Burger King/CIBC?

 

[Lenser]

Personally, for that area I'd rather see the rise of a string of five and seven story residential buildings, with retail on the ground level. 22 stories would stick out like a sore thumb and look out of scale compared to what's around it. I'd like to see more verticality, but I'd rather see the densification be spread out - less spikes of towers, more uniform filling-out of the streets.

 

[ksun]

Personally, for that area I'd rather see the rise of a string of five and seven story residential buildings, with retail on the ground level. 22 stories would stick out like a sore thumb and look out of scale compared to what's around it. I'd like to see more verticality, but I'd rather see the densification be spread out - less spikes of towers, more uniform filling-out of the streets.

Ideally, Spadina, College, Queen could all be what you described - that's what you see in cities like Paris, Vienna or Munich, uniform midrises with no gaps.
But give land prices nowadays, I am not sure if it would make financial sense for a developer to purchase it and build a 7 story.

I don't necesarily agree with the sore thumb analogy. Many of Toronto's streets were predominantly lowrise with nothing more than 4 stories, that applies to Yonge north of Dundas, Church, Dundas, Queen etc. The first tower will look like totally out of place, but as these areas become increasily dense, they will just be highrise buildings in a large city.

Honestly I don't know how downtown can grow without adding these "sore thumbs". Except for a few streets, most are primarily low rise - does that mean we shouldn't build anything taller than 10 stories except on Yonge, Bay, and King? And I certainly don't agree that many pockets of downtown should remain their small town-ish appeal unless the buildings inventory is of particular historic value.

Regarding College/Spadina, is it really an interesting and charming neighbourhood whose tranquility shouldn't be tampered with? I don't think. The intersection is extremely generic and boring with primarily low rise chains (banks, fastfood, convenience stores). Do we really think a two story Burger King and Popeyes (SE corner), a two story CIBC (NW) and a 711 gives the area characters? I hope just like what Pace might do to Jarvis and Dundas, some new projects may kick start revitalization of College/Spadina. Even St Lawrence Market is adding highrises (Berczy).

 

[Lenser]

Sure it makes sense to build six and seven story buildings - really, it's all about market demand. I don't see the demand for nothing but 20 story towers and above continuing indefinitely, that's all. The city has enjoyed a tremendous boom but it's merely part of an endless parade of cycles. Yes, the centre core of the GTA is becoming more like London or Manhattan, where land values demand a certain densification and developer rate of return. Yes, the population of the GTA is currently increasing by about a hundred grand a year, or so I've heard.

Yet your call for wholesale razing of low-rise buildings downtown in favour of condo towers strikes me as rash and premature. The current pace of development is clearly insufficient for you; me, I look back at my own relationship of the city spanning roughly 40 years and I see astonishing changes. I am impressed by how things are changing up in Toronto but I don't feel any need to speed up the process - it already has gathered tremendous momentum.

I just don't think that what you are constantly advocating for amounts to any kind of magical panacea - I don't believe you aren't seeing all the pieces of the puzzle.

 

[ksun]

^ I didn't advocate wholesale razing of low rise buildings downtown in favor of condo towers. What I suggest is not to be afraid of change when it is good and not to oppose something just because it changes things you are used to seeing.

Take that Burger King and CIBC at College/Spadina for example. Do you think they make the best sense and value for the prime location? Does the fact that they are two stories tall create any sort of "identity" for the neighbourhood? 500 meters downt the road, the corner of Spadina/Dundas has exactly the same banks and fast food restaurant. If a high quality 40 story tower is proposed at both sides, not only providing lodging for hundreds of people with easy access to transit (which means fewer cars and more pedestrians), but also adding more retail besides Burger King and banks, will you think "too bad, we don't need such tall buildings here because S/C is always a low rise neighbourhood"?

I can understand the opposition due to the quality/design of the tower and reputation of the builder. What I can't understand is opposition only because everthing else is lowrise. I didn't say things need to be sped up. Just let it happen when it make sense. Hardly any building at Spadina/College is a treasure for Toronto to keep. If anything is an eyesore, it is the CIBC, that Burger King at Spadina/College that look so dull and suburban. It is 315 Spadina (at D'arcy) and the RBC, Scotiabank and National Bank at three intersections of Dundas/Spadina that remind people more of Markham or Vaughan than the centre of downtown Toronto. They are neither pretty nor "urban", No?

 

[Lenser]

But here's the thing: you are not the sole arbiter of what constitutes "good" change - just as you also don't have the last word on what buildings and heights are properly deemed acceptable or in severe need of replacement. I sense your impatience, but the situation is more complex than you want it to be. I get the fact that you think the corner in question could sorely use an upgrade. Where we differ is the prescription.

 

[salsa]

One thing I appreciate about Boston, NYC, Montreal, and Europe is the consistency of their build form. There's no hodgepodge of buildings of different heights, age, and style like in Toronto. My friend from Montreal had to laugh when he saw the Distillery District (among other places). "This is beyond ridiculous. In Paris or old Montreal, you won't see a random pair of glass towers smack in the middle of it.", he said. I would much rather see this building restored to it's former glory, like with the Dineen building or 650 Bay St Boutigue Hotel. If it has to be redeveloped, why not build something that's more reasonable and respectful for the area? A couple of examples that I like are 1, 2, and 3.

and also lowrise buildings don't automatically guarantee street liveliness either. Lowrise take many forms, could be just a residential house, or a Burger King, or 711, or a Scotiabank, another CIBC. None of this is "interesting", and it is exactly what the intersection of Spadina and College has.

Spadina/College is definitely not an interesting non-chain retail spot, and I doubt a 22 story rental will make it worse. Why is a 22 story condo with a burger King/CIBC on the ground level any worse than ... just a two story Burger King/CIBC?

Many of those chains you complain about have replaced much older and more attractive buildings that once stood there. Please, find me any modern street in Toronto that has any charm, soul, or creativity whatsoever. If you think redevelopment will make Spadina look more like Paris, Vienna or Munich, you're wrong. What will happen is that the eclectic and narrow storefronts will be consolidated into much larger ones, enclosed by a plain wall of glass that looks identical to any new building, and occupied by either a Starbucks, bank, drug mart, or clinic. Many of the new buildings won't last half as long as the old buildings they replace. The cookie-cutter towers will be dominated by glass and spandrel like everywhere else, perhaps with a little grey brick if we're lucky (which seems to be the latest fad in this city). Each block will have one or two properties that won't get redeveloped, so we'll get a bunch of blank walls abutting them. They won't all be mid rise either, after all we're talking about a 22 storey proposal here. And while that happens, transit won't be getting less crowded, public schools won't be expanded, hospital wait times won't be getting any shorter, and roads won't be getting any wider.

I think we all regret the loss of countless victorians for the 'towers in the park' and brutalist slabs that dominate places like St James Town or the old Regent Park (which was modern at the time, and seemed like a good idea). Be careful what you wish for.

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.

The tower is important too. It's not like they're invisible unless you stand right in front of it. But if developers can't even get the street elements right, then they should piss off.

 

[nopacnone]

The idea that architectural uniformity/consistency between buildings is better than a heavy diversity bears no weight in my mind.
There's somewhat of a double standard when we appreciate a city's population for its diverse cultures and wealths, but then look up to uniformity & sectorization for its architecture.

 

[Lenser]

Agreed. And while it's fine that Salsa's Montrealer friend thinks the Distillery looks ridiculous, I for one think it looks great.

It's all too easy to be knucked under by doctrinaire views on urbanism. I see nothing inherently wrong with buildings of significantly varying masses and densities sharing the same street or immediate neighbourhood; that said, specific context is everything.

 

[ehlow]

Diversity in our buildings age, built form & architecture is actually one of the things I like best about our city.

I would say that NYC also has a "hodge podge" of height/style/age as well, but just because other cities are a certain way doesn't mean we should always do what they do.

 

[junctionist]

I like consistent built forms but I think over time, people from around the world will be fascinated by Toronto's dynamic urban fabric as something totally unique. It's important that they integrate well with neighbourhoods and have good design. There's no city like Toronto where high-rise buildings seem to go everywhere, even on greenfields on the edge of the city. When I see European cities from above, the midrise density is impressive but also monotonous.

 

[ehlow]

I like consistent built forms but I think over time, people from around the world will be fascinated by Toronto's dynamic urban fabric as something totally unique. It's important that they integrate well with neighbourhoods and have good design. There's no city like Toronto where high-rise buildings seem to go everywhere, even on greenfields on the edge of the city. When I see European cities from above, the midrise density is impressive but also monotonous.

That's true, it's hard to think of a lot of cities which have as many tall buildings in the distant suburbs as Toronto.

 

[salsa]

I'm not worried about the build form as much as I am worried that our old streets are giving way to a sea of mediocrity, as I described already. As for the Montreal guy, he has a point. What kind of city allows a bunch of glass towers to be plunked in the middle of one of the oldest parts of the city. I don't mind that particular outcome, but it's silly nevertheless.

 

[ehlow]

I'm not worried about the build form as much as I am worried that our old streets are giving way to a sea of mediocrity, as I described already. As for the Montreal guy, he has a point. What kind of city allows a bunch of glass towers to be plunked in the middle of one of the oldest parts of the city. I don't mind the outcome, but it's silly nevertheless.

I think most people have a very positive reaction to the Distillery District.

What kind of city has glass towers among older buildings? Toronto, and I love it. Montreal is great, I visited recently and loved it (and Paris is obviously beautiful), but I also love Toronto and our city's unique style & character, which includes a mix of new glass towers with older buildings. The Distillery District is a great example of keeping our heritage along with new glass towers in my opinion, and personally I think it's great.

St Lawrence Market is also a great example of new & old mixed together. The mix of old & new is one of our defining characteristics, in my opinion.

 

[Lenser]

I'm not worried about the build form as much as I am worried that our old streets are giving way to a sea of mediocrity, as I described already. As for the Montreal guy, he has a point. What kind of city allows a bunch of glass towers to be plunked in the middle of one of the oldest parts of the city. I don't mind that particular outcome, but it's silly nevertheless.

I don't get it. Please explain why it's silly. The contrast in materials, texture, colour and architectural styles is something I find intriguing - I don't see a disconnect, I see a cool tension between old and new.

I dig Montreal immensely - got hitched there and have long wanted to live there - but it's got its own thing going on - as does Toronto.