Toronto Ïce Condominiums at York Centre | 234.07m | 67s | Lanterra | a—A

Tewder, there is a Union Station Precinct Plan that is to deal with all these issues you are talking about.

District Plan:
http://www.toronto.ca/union_station/district_plan.htm

There is a good mix of activity on the site. There's residential. There's commercial. There's recreation. There's attractions. It's not just about height, there's an obvious intent of creating a high density mixed use precinct surrounding Union Station. Yes, there are issues with pedestrianization down there, but that's not an isolated problem to this area, but all new areas thanks to the dozens of requirements by all sorts of agencies that didnt' exist when the "city" was first built up back in the long time ago.
 
jaymckay said:
I'm curious as to how this will change the 18 York design. That advertising fin on the south side makes no sense now. I hope they just re-design the whole thing--the old design looks cheap beside that smart looking Aa office building.
Click to expand...

Yeah, that's something I've been thinking about also, the 18 York design is starting to seem a bit dated. It also seems a bit small for something so close to Union Station, that spot would be well suited to a tall, dense tower.

I'm also curious with what will happen to the land directly to the west of 18 York (north-east corner of Simcoe & Bremner). I think I remember hearing that it's owned by Fairmont. Whatever is built there could include a connection above the tracks to the Skywalk.
 
Tewder said:
Am I missing the 'master' plan/vision here? There is more to city planning than setting height limits on buildings, imo. What I see happening amounts to ad hoc planning and piecemeal development that is driven by private interests.
Click to expand...
It's an office building, condos, and retail, of course it's driven by private interests! Almost all development is. No offence, but to claim that the city looks at nothing but height is willfully ignorant. Read the report. The city has design guidelines specifically for skyscrapers, and staff is recommending design review like with Aura. Same with all new buildings in the Union Station precinct. A long list of issues will be reviewed, ranging from streetscaping to the need for family sized units. Like I said, read the report on the first page of the thread.

But all that's getting ahead of ourselves - there hasn't even been a site plan submitted yet, and fundamentals like commercial/residential mix have to be dealt with before the details.

Tewder said:
Indeed that would be an improvement, but I don't think I'm perceiving the same thing you are. I certainly don't get a Midtown Manhattan vibe here, as there is far more to Midtown Manhattan than height! The areas emerging south of the Gardiner are starting to feel more like North York to me than downtown Toronto. Have you ever walked up Yonge Street from say Sheppard to Finch? Not a very engaging urban experience! I'm not an urban planner and admit that i don't know what that magic mix of planning/development is that creates a downtown Toronto vs a downtown North York/Mississauga, but I do know that I don't see it being done in the area in question and that bothers me. If you look at earlier pictures you will see that there was essentially a blank canvas down to the waterfront, one that has been frittered away because of a lack of vision and/or commitment (financial, poltical or otherwise). I'm sure things will turn out 'okay' but I'm doubtful the area will boast the same sort of urban feel you experience north of the highway.
Click to expand...
How does it feel like North York? There aren't any buildings there yet! Well other than Infinity, and even that has good fundamentals (ie, street retail) even if the architecture is medicre. So what specifically don't you like about the area? Other than the lack of historic buildings, I don't see how it'll be fundamentally different from the financial district.
 
Tewder said:
Am I missing the 'master' plan/vision here? There is more to city planning than setting height limits on buildings, imo. What I see happening amounts to ad hoc planning and piecemeal development that is driven by private interests.
Click to expand...

Height limits have very little if anything to do with the planning profession. Go out and read a little... the area in question has binders and books worth of plans and regulations that directly impact and shape the decisions made by private sector developers. The question of height often ends up being a political decision, there really isn't a planning rationale or case for 50s vs 90s in this particular location - its all the other factors that are actually of importance.
 
^well said Mike. Which is why I will propose the office component @ 90 storeys. A marquee tenant will have great views over the condos, the city will have achieved some (almost lost) commercial density goals for the area... and every skyscraper geek in the city will be satiated for a few years.

I'm calling Manulife as I type this.....
 
MisterF said:
It's an office building, condos, and retail, of course it's driven by private interests! Almost all development is. No offence, but to claim that the city looks at nothing but height is willfully ignorant. Read the report. The city has design guidelines specifically for skyscrapers, and staff is recommending design review like with Aura. Same with all new buildings in the Union Station precinct. A long list of issues will be reviewed, ranging from streetscaping to the need for family sized units. Like I said, read the report on the first page of the thread.
Click to expand...

I wasn't aware of this report, but look forward to having a look! That said, my points are aimed less specifically at this project or the Union Station node, but more generally at development south of the Gardiner/Railway lines.

MisterF said:
IHow does it feel like North York? There aren't any buildings there yet! Well other than Infinity, and even that has good fundamentals (ie, street retail) even if the architecture is medicre. So what specifically don't you like about the area? Other than the lack of historic buildings, I don't see how it'll be fundamentally different from the financial district.
Click to expand...

Sorry, I'll have to disagree. Development south of the highway just doesn't look to be emerging as very pedestrian-friendly, and therefore not very urban:

16York_render.jpg
 
Mike in TO said:
Height limits have very little if anything to do with the planning profession. Go out and read a little... the area in question has binders and books worth of plans and regulations that directly impact and shape the decisions made by private sector developers. The question of height often ends up being a political decision, there really isn't a planning rationale or case for 50s vs 90s in this particular location - its all the other factors that are actually of importance.
Click to expand...

Mike, I'm not against height in this case or for this area. I'm just not happy with the overview of what is happening south of the highway. I hope I'm wrong, and maybe it'll just take time, we'll just have to see.
 
Tewder said:
Sorry, I'll have to disagree. Development south of the highway just doesn't look to be emerging as very pedestrian-friendly, and therefore not very urban
Click to expand...

You're basing this on a rendering from a helicopter's point of view. Only Infinity has finished so far. The North York comparison you gave is not based on reality, either...Yonge Street has many blocks of low-rise buildings with street retail that are virtually identical to any other pre-war High Street (not to mention, like the Bremner zone, entire block-long construction sites that suggest judgment on the area in its current form is inherently flawed). A few individual sites along Yonge in North York aren't great, but they're actually outnumbered by the good sites. Overall, Yonge has a growing number of pedestrians, and Bremner will, too. No one thinks it won't take time - the buildings kind of have to be finished first...in ten years, when thousands more people are living south of the railway/Front, and when the retail/restaurants have had a chance to get established, the whole area will be crawling with people.

"Pedestrian-friendly" is a mostly useless buzzword. On this forum it often means "where hipsters and/or yuppies walk" which means "urban" equals "where hipsters and/or yuppies live."
 
Bremner has the potential to be a very walkable street from Bathurst to York. They key word here is potential.

It has all the elements in place: park land/public space, institution/entertainment venue(s) and a mix of uses (office, retail, residential). The Spadina/York segment is bookended by the ACC and Rogers centre, two massive complexes that draw tens of thousands of people on most nights every season of the year. Add the CN Tower and the south convention centre to the mix and you have visitors and other tourists in this section of the city all the time. It will also have access (lower Simcoe) to the entire core street-grid, bike lanes and a streetcar ROW.

What does it lack? In my opinion, it lacks sufficient diversity and "character". But how does a new, emerging neighbourhood gain those two aspects? First, it needs more than one development cycle. NYCC, for all of its faults, has both new high-rise and old low-rise street retail/uses. Bremner will be some what monotonous down this stretch given that all buildings look to be built around the same time, in the same context and with materials that date it for the current construction era.

Adding diversity is relatively easy but it lacks economic common sense. There are sections along this stretch that could be lined with 3-storey live-work towns or mid-rise lofts/retail/office. Good examples of this size and scale of development can be found in the Beaches, Queen W and St. Lawrence. Imagine the placement of a Candy Factor Lofts w/ retail at grade at the corner of Lower Simcoe and Bremner? Imagine south side of Bremner across from Rogers Centre lined with 1-2 storey buildings that function/look like brick buildings that line Queen St. or Yonge St? These buildings could combine the types of materials used in the newer buildings but also retain some of the historical/industrial context of the Roundhouse and grit of the railway lands.

As for character, this is one of those age old debates that will never be neatly resolved. This area has a unique and important history in the development of Toronto, Southern Ontario and all of Canada. With the exception of the name of the CN Tower and the roundhouse (which is to become a bigbox store), there is nothing along Bremner that reflects the significance of the railway.

Elements are needed to help develop this or some other thematic character to enhance the street. It could become the new Front St. It has that potential.
 
CSW2424 said:
Elements are needed to help develop this or some other thematic character to enhance the street. It could become the new Front St. It has that potential.
Click to expand...

But is Front St. much or any better, other than the St. Lawrence stretch?
 
adma said:
But is Front St. much or any better, other than the St. Lawrence stretch?
Click to expand...

I agree, but it doesn't change the fact that Front is a somewhat of a diverse, character-esq street with destinations, walkability, tourist and vistor anchors with a mix of retail, residential and institutions. Where front street fails a properly envisionsed Bremner could succeed.
 
In my experience, Front West is not particularly pedestrian-friendly (and there's some specific reasons that make it so, reasons that either do not apply to or are not invoked when places like Bremner or Yonge in North York are condemned) yet it always has pedestrians.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top