This has actually been a great site-example to use when we have been talking to the media about VILLIER'S ISLAND.

20-ish years ago, Waterfront Toronto spent a lot of time and money on a Master Plan for the area that includes BLOCK-13, that never envisioned towers on these lands - and mostly maxed-out at 8-Storeys.

1719255003753.png

PDF - https://www.waterfrontoronto.ca/sit...west-don-lands-precinct-plan---may-2005-1.pdf

Whereas, the reality now, in 2024 -- needs a 31-Storey tower... something much bigger than they had "planned" for in 2005.

Here is the quote in NRUT -

1719255235364.png
 
HousingNowTO said:
This has actually been a great site-example to use when we have been talking to the media about VILLIER'S ISLAND.

20-ish years ago, Waterfront Toronto spent a lot of time and money on a Master Plan for the area that includes BLOCK-13, that never envisioned towers on these lands - and mostly maxed-out at 8-Storeys.

View attachment 575149
PDF - https://www.waterfrontoronto.ca/sit...west-don-lands-precinct-plan---may-2005-1.pdf

Whereas, the reality now, in 2024 -- needs a 31-Storey tower... something much bigger than they had "planned" for in 2005.

Here is the quote in NRUT -

View attachment 575151
Click to expand...

To be fair, the economic reality is one determined by the government and not intrinsically tied to density/height (though it can be)

It's just as much a function of how the government chooses to price the land it owns (for lease/sale), whether a public builder is used, and the choice to finance in the private market with/without CMHC, vs a cash from current model of financing.

Change any of those and get you can increase affordable housing within a more medium density model.

That's not an argument against high density, but one that points out it's not the only path to a desired outcome. Governments have simply chosen to forego those other options. Even the public builder model, I expect, will see debt-financing, where I might argue for more, or complete capital-from-current, and then all those interest savings can be used to deliver more affordable housing.
 
Yikes.

I do like the continuation of the arc facing the park, and the height and massing seem fine.

It's extremely disappointing that this has gone back to being monochrome, and it feels like all the fun and whimsy is gone.
 
What a disappointment.
The project went from something colourfully unique that might have charged-up the street, to another staggered bit of grey blockitecture that's more or less indistinguishable from countless other projects across the GTA.
I swear this grey, same-style mania that's seized Toronto for the last decade and a half is some kind of bizarre professional pathology. It's depressing in both the effect of its colouring and in its pervasive conformity. A whole lot of building with very little to actually look at.
What a letdown.
 
Last edited:
Another building where they basically fired the architect and let the accountants redesign it. That said, there is a whole rejection of colour out there, especially in residential design. My hobby horse is the houses featured in the G&M Architourist feature. They. All. Look. Exactly. The. Same. Medium to light coloured wood and white painted drywall. That's it. Why anyone comes out with a "colour of the year" any more is beyond me.
 
Letdown? Sure. It's also thinking drawings in rezoning exercises are halfway to being built. We want affordable. We want high end finishes to make ourselves feel better about our sub 400 square foot purchases. This is taking a concept to reality. I was already let down by Toronto's standard for an oppressive podium massing and introduction of a tall tower. Of course, the grey and removal of everything whimsy makes it even more oppressive.

With as of right zoning, we wouldn't have seen the concept if the concept was created at all and would be a lot less disappointed with this reality.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top