AlvinofDiaspar

Moderator
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 22, 2007
Messages
30,646
Reaction score
22,305
City:
Toronto
You realize this is walking distance, not actual distance right?

1628009694640.png


AoD
 

greenleaf

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
May 17, 2007
Messages
2,589
Reaction score
1,432
There is no good reason to keep this site low rise. If one wants to argue that context is important, well then. Context is important. This building is literally on the subway line. we should utilize this asset. It could not get any closer.

There are high rise buildings near this site. There is a deep need and demand for more space at UofT. There is an opportunity to support employment and learning. This will be a public building.

Why do the neighbourhood groups value suppressing these things? Why do their opinions carry so weight? Why do values of low rise buildings and low density hold so much importance and value here?
 

AlvinofDiaspar

Moderator
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 22, 2007
Messages
30,646
Reaction score
22,305
City:
Toronto
There is no good reason to keep this site low rise. If one wants to argue that context is important, well then. Context is important. This building is literally on the subway line. we should utilize this asset. It could not get any closer.

There are high rise buildings near this site. There is a deep need and demand for more space at UofT. There is an opportunity to support employment and learning. This will be a public building.

Why do the neighbourhood groups value suppressing these things? Why do their opinions carry so weight? Why do values of low rise buildings and low density hold so much importance and value here?

I have no problem opposing something like the residential tower proposed by the ROM 15 years ago; but this proposal? Right beside the Faculty of Music and arguably located further away than Philosopher's Walk than it? I don't see what the huge issue was - if anything that was contextual to the institutional buildings around it.

AoD
 

Northern Light

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
May 20, 2007
Messages
14,949
Reaction score
29,237
You realize this is walking distance, not actual distance right?

View attachment 339035

AoD

The distance argument is poor in both directions.

Like an argument over whether the height of a 299M building is somehow lesser than 300M one.

People will have their preferences.........and will differ.

A few feet/metres isn't the real issue. In distance or height.

Context is about what is immediately adjacent and immediately across the street, and an examination of whether there is intent to create a certain flavour 'ie. campus feel'.
Again, people are welcome to differ as to whether there should be such goals (context/feel); or whether this proposals merits outweigh those concerns.

But it's simply wrong to argue that the proposal neatly fits in with its neighbours.
Remember, I like the building, though I do wish they had proposed for another site (they have a few on west campus where it would be an excellent fit.)

****

As to 'space', U of T is my alma mater; I'm entirely sympathetic with their needs; and I agree more space on St George campus is required.

But there are a host of sites that the University already owns that would fit this proposal more aptly; and something here more in line w/the new Trinity residence would have blended more seamlessly and drawn less or no opposition.

Whether one agrees or disagrees w/the opposition to the original proposal, it was entirely predictable.

Whether one liked the original iteration of this proposal or not; we can generally agree the settlement doesn't make it any better.
 
Last edited:

Sjb

New Member
Member Bio
Joined
Aug 1, 2021
Messages
17
Reaction score
13
There is no good reason to keep this site low rise. If one wants to argue that context is important, well then. Context is important. This building is literally on the subway line. we should utilize this asset. It could not get any closer.

There are high rise buildings near this site. There is a deep need and demand for more space at UofT. There is an opportunity to support employment and learning. This will be a public building.

Why do the neighbourhood groups value suppressing these things? Why do their opinions carry so weight? Why do values of low rise buildings and low density hold so much importance and value here?
Why do people who don’t live in neighbourhoods obsess over densifying them? This is an honest question. Why DO people with no skin in the game, get so gung-ho about things?
 

Sjb

New Member
Member Bio
Joined
Aug 1, 2021
Messages
17
Reaction score
13
Resorting to this kind of boring rhetoric just shows me you don’t have a leg to stand on. Do you know where I live?
Nope. I know it’s nowhere near me, or you’d appreciate why nobody here wants this…but my question was a genuine one. I’ve never woken up and thought to myself: “that guy, I’m going to insist the city overshadow his residence with a needless tower, which has nothing to do with me”. I’m curious why some people DO. Nothing to do, with legs.
 

saynotofaux

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Oct 11, 2011
Messages
201
Reaction score
347
Nope. I know it’s nowhere near me, or you’d appreciate why nobody here wants this…but my question was a genuine one. I’ve never woken up and thought to myself: “that guy, I’m going to insist the city overshadow his residence with a needless tower, which has nothing to do with me”. I’m curious why some people DO. Nothing to do, with legs.

You would be fun to cross-examine!
 

ADRM

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Oct 2, 2015
Messages
5,476
Reaction score
15,785
Why do people who don’t live in neighbourhoods obsess over densifying them? This is an honest question. Why DO people with no skin in the game, get so gung-ho about things?

The short list for me, personally: equity, sustainability, affordability, support for Main Street retail, efficient use of social and physical infrastructure, just generally good public policy, and the creation of more interesting cities.

The “who don’t live in the neighbourhoods” piece is completely irrelevant; I don’t personally require for my own lifestyle the government to allow me to marry someone of the same sex, but I care deeply about it being lawful.

Given that land use planning is one of the areas of public policy/politics that most directly impacts how people experience their daily lives, I’ve always found it odd that people are generally *way* more gung-ho about more abstract topics like, say, tax policy.
 

jje1000

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
May 19, 2007
Messages
4,839
Reaction score
2,331
Far too emphatic a statement; don't confuse your preferences with fact, please.
As an 'Architecture Critic', I get that you want to criticize everything, heck...it's right in the job title.... and I suppose like a broken clock.... but this isn't one of those times.
An architectural critic ultimately offers an opinion, not the final word. Let us not forget that Christopher Hume was also an architectural critic.

Regardless, it's clear that this building is going back for a redesign—and I do think that people should hold off their vitriol at such an early phase. To have such a violent reaction against rough massing (devoid of materiality or articulation) is unnecessary.

Anymore boxier, you could host a Walmart and a RONA in it.
TBH, the first proposal was just as boxy, it was just more fleshed-out and had a bit of render magic on it, and people went ape-crazy.
 
Last edited:

Top