Hipster Duck
Senior Member
Agreed 100%.
It's hard to take a rendering seriously that has 40 foot high, curved window glass panes with no outside reinforcerment.
- Thread starter Conrad Black
- Start date
Agreed 100%.
It's hard to take a rendering seriously that has 40 foot high, curved window glass panes with no outside reinforcerment.
AlvinofDiaspar
Moderator
They can do it (whether they would is another matter) - the freestanding glass cylinder entrance at the Shanghai Apple Store is about 40 feet high.
AoD
AoD
TrickyRicky
Senior Member
RC8, I commented somewhere else about the idea that if we feel every part of the city should be forced to be moulded into a mixed-use sustainable neigbhourhood framework it would seem that we are replaying the same planning mistakes of the past.
By the way, what's the probability of those cityplace buildings next to this development becoming prime prostitution real estate, and what's the probability that many young people living there going to Ryerson or U of T will somehow have no trouble paying for their tuition?
By the way, what's the probability of those cityplace buildings next to this development becoming prime prostitution real estate, and what's the probability that many young people living there going to Ryerson or U of T will somehow have no trouble paying for their tuition?
innsertnamehere
Superstar
some more interesting notes from the PDF these renderings have been pulled from:
2.5 million square feet of office
600,000 square feet of Rental Residential
1 million square feet of Convention space
1 million square feet of retail
1.7 million square feet of hotel space
175,000 - 450,000 square feet of casino. (I'm guessing around 350,000 will be selected, or two floors)
5.5 acre park
4000 parking stalls
Vehicle entrances:
the new convention centre will include an 80,000 square foot pillar-less "ballroom"
will be home to over 10,000 office employees
70,000 square feet of restaurant space
also, I fail to see the double skinned portion of the tower that was mentioned in the article..
edit: wow. I jsut noticed they mislabeled King st. and wellington street...
a Nice list made by Isaidso at SSC of all councillor emails so people can e-mail away in support (or disapproval) of this project. Get E-mailing!
[/QUOTE]
2.5 million square feet of office
600,000 square feet of Rental Residential
1 million square feet of Convention space
1 million square feet of retail
1.7 million square feet of hotel space
175,000 - 450,000 square feet of casino. (I'm guessing around 350,000 will be selected, or two floors)
5.5 acre park
4000 parking stalls
Vehicle entrances:
the new convention centre will include an 80,000 square foot pillar-less "ballroom"
will be home to over 10,000 office employees
70,000 square feet of restaurant space
also, I fail to see the double skinned portion of the tower that was mentioned in the article..
edit: wow. I jsut noticed they mislabeled King st. and wellington street...
a Nice list made by Isaidso at SSC of all councillor emails so people can e-mail away in support (or disapproval) of this project. Get E-mailing!
[/QUOTE]
Last edited:
RC8
Senior Member
I am not advocating for complete homogeneity, but the fact is that in Toronto today only those who are both rich and/or willing to put up with enormous amounts of difficulties would raise their kids in the city. I understand that most members of this board are young and don't have families, but we should be making an effort so that people of all ages and social backgrounds can enjoy an urban lifestyle if they choose to.
The waterfront has immense potential to offer the young urban people of today a nice place to live with their families in the future. Watefront Toronto have done a fantastic job making this an ever more desirable place.
I think that the builders of a casino are targeting this area because, yes they want access to tourists, but mostly because they want to hook up the young urban professionals of today on gambling. I don't think the developers care about any negative impacts to the community, and the OLG have said explicitly that they wouldn't want a casino in a residential neighbourhood (i.e. where families live), implying that they are aware of such negative impacts. Prices with a casino would increase not as a function of desirability but rather as a result of the 'tourist trap' effect. The area is already overpriced as it is because of the skydome and the CN Tower, but the casino would probably make it ridiculous!
I have yet to see or hear of any positive impacts that the casino would bring other than these fancy renderings and a relatively small amount of money.
We have a lot to lose and very little to gain, as far as I'm concerned. I'm not opposed to a small casino, I like to gamble! and I would like to see the MTCC replaced with office and residential towers eventually (while keeping convention space). But to disguise the whole thing as city-building and fiscally responsible policy rings all sorts of alarm bells for me. Everyone I know who cares about this ward and the inhabitants of this city has come out to oppose this development.
The waterfront has immense potential to offer the young urban people of today a nice place to live with their families in the future. Watefront Toronto have done a fantastic job making this an ever more desirable place.
I think that the builders of a casino are targeting this area because, yes they want access to tourists, but mostly because they want to hook up the young urban professionals of today on gambling. I don't think the developers care about any negative impacts to the community, and the OLG have said explicitly that they wouldn't want a casino in a residential neighbourhood (i.e. where families live), implying that they are aware of such negative impacts. Prices with a casino would increase not as a function of desirability but rather as a result of the 'tourist trap' effect. The area is already overpriced as it is because of the skydome and the CN Tower, but the casino would probably make it ridiculous!
I have yet to see or hear of any positive impacts that the casino would bring other than these fancy renderings and a relatively small amount of money.
We have a lot to lose and very little to gain, as far as I'm concerned. I'm not opposed to a small casino, I like to gamble! and I would like to see the MTCC replaced with office and residential towers eventually (while keeping convention space). But to disguise the whole thing as city-building and fiscally responsible policy rings all sorts of alarm bells for me. Everyone I know who cares about this ward and the inhabitants of this city has come out to oppose this development.
AlvinofDiaspar
Moderator
They are still free to choose that - but I don't recall it gives them the right to exclude other lifestyles using the argument of certain activities interfering with theirs. One day it would be casinos, another would be having to navigate those "undesirable others", yet another would be not being able to park or drive anywhere fast. Besides, trying to raise kids in an urban environment and expecting congruence with suburban expectations is difficult - deal with it - all those people at other mature cities did.
Huh? Arguing that Skydome (knowing how popular that place is) and CN Tower has such a large impact on residential value, over say, proximity to the CBD, education institutions, accessibility of the core area in general - is extremely far fetched.
I have no doubts some proponents would like to overstate the positive impacts (just like the opponents have a tendency to do the same with the negative ones) - but like it or not, a casino does meant additional jobs and it does meant additional tourist spending. Those are very tangible benefits.
How would a small casino be any less effective at creating social issues? It wasn't like alcoholism is reduced by putting booze in brown paper bags. As to your call to arms - I think the universality of the message is overstated.
AoD
Last edited:
gristle
Senior Member
You raise excellent points.
I had a nice, brief conversation with an OLG rep who insisted that the casino would have no negative impacts, but then countered that there were to be efforts in helping people overcome gambling addiction issues. His view was that the casino facility was an absolute win-win for the downtown, and would draw more investment downtown. I asked if there were studies with real numbers that could back this assertion up, and he said those were already presented. I mentioned that studies showed various numbers, and didn't show how the casino and related facilities would affect other local businesses. The studies were not about negative impacts, I was told. The purpose was to show the positive impacts. I asked about why the numbers varied so significantly, and he countered that, for example, studies showed only a general number of casino, retail and construction jobs that would be created, because, for example, it would be up to the operator to determine staffing I asked about how many jobs would be part-time, and he could not answer. I asked him if OLG planned for more casinos downtown, and his response was that this one had to be built first.
Given the size of this project, it's clear that it won't be built over night, - or if it will ever resemble the renderporn that is being circulated. I would imagine that some enterprises may not want to be situated next to a casino, so one has to wonder if all that commercial space will be easy to lease. Given that, and the issue with renting retail space, one can speculate that the first thing to be built will be the casino. The rest of this, in part or in entirety, may or may not appear.
RC8
Senior Member
Who is defending suburban expectations? The real suburban expectation is to have 'suburbs' and 'adult-party-land' and nothing in between. Toronto today lacks the infrastructure to support families and seniors that pretty much every major European, Asian, and South American urban area has in place. I predict we will get there, and I believe we could even surpass many of them, but it will be thanks to the likes of Waterfront Toronto and Paul Bedford, and not thanks to 'suprperpbtalls!!!' and casinos.
I was referring to the retail scene when addressing the CN Tower and Skydome, not real estate. Real estate would most likely rise gradually but with an emphasis on investor-geared 1-bedroom family unfriendly units. The number of families living in the waterfront has been increasing in the past few years, and I think this trend is very healthy.
But proponents are spending millions of dollars to convince the public, and they are doing so because they intend to make enormous profits. Those opposing the casino are doing so mostly through low-budget activism and because they care about the ward and the city. We can get all those jobs and all that tourist money by building strong desirable neighbourhoods and without any of the negative social consequences. Downtown Toronto does not need a casino to be a grand tourist destination.
The same way that the little casino-like-thing where the Woodbine racetrack used to be (in Queen East) is fairly unobtrusive. It's different to provide people with the opportunity to gamble than to have a giant corporation that spends millions upon millions luring people into gambling compulsively.
Automation Gallery
Superstar
I find that many here couldnt care less, but some are just following Adam Vaughan, Michael Layton, and Gordon Perks agenda against any idea of building a casino downtown...basically repeating word by word of what they have all said before. Strange
Im going to bet when this goes to council in April it will pass
Im going to bet when this goes to council in April it will pass
Filip
Senior Member
I find that many here couldnt care less, but some are just following Adam Vaughan, Michael Layton, and Gordon Perks agenda against any idea of building a casino downtown...basically repeating word by word of what they have all said before. Strange
Im going to bet when this goes to council in April it will pass
From your mouth (or fingers in this case) to God's ears!
innsertnamehere
Superstar
I could never support one in exhibition place or the port lands though. I hope it goes here, or if it must happen but not in this location, woodbine.
updated my 3D model with the new casino towers, as well as the skinnier office towers. moved the office towers to a more accurate location now that we have more detailed renders as well. casino towers at 263m
updated my 3D model with the new casino towers, as well as the skinnier office towers. moved the office towers to a more accurate location now that we have more detailed renders as well. casino towers at 263m
Last edited:
Filip
Senior Member
Contra
Senior Member
Look at Fosters work in Vancouver as well ( I forget the name of the project but it is a undulated facade such as this).
Hipster Duck
Senior Member
Does it contain single glass panes that have a dimension of 40' X 30' in a convex shape completely unsupported by mullions? Are there, like, 50 of them? My point is that the renderings are hard to take seriously as a representation of the finished product because, unless under very rare circumstances, this kind of engineering and design is prohibitively expensive.
In other words, don't judge the design by those renderings. They are almost 100% guaranteed to look different in real life.
Irishmonk
Senior Member
True, but it's refreshing to see a dazzling preliminary render, rather than, say, two rectangles with the assurance that it's just "a massing study".