Toronto Nicholas Residences | ?m | 35s | Urban Capital | Core Architects

Urban Shocker said:
Perhaps a bias against anonymity - living in a box in the sky, not knowing your neighbours, not necessarily caring to - is at the root of this aberrant attitude? If so, it's a strange thing to find in a big city, where getting lost in the crowd is one of the defining possibilities, and something that makes urban living attractive.

Perhaps some architects internalize this attitude and try to create a compensatory "sense of house" in their multi-unit buildings - Safdie's Habitat, Teeple's Gansevoort for instance. Others embrace the communal qualities that minimalist residential towers express, and they find a market for what they do - not everyone wants to live in a little house at street level and generations of Torontonians have been happy to rent ( and, since the first condos were built in Ontario in 1968, own ) in tower buildings instead.

"House" is just a different concept from "condo" - not a superior one.
Click to expand...

I find this applies more in the larger buildings. In the low rise (say under 15 storeys) people may be even more social than house dwellers. In my 11 storey building, I know about 90% of the residents and have done business with about 30% of them.
 
Perhaps a bias against anonymity - living in a box in the sky, not knowing your neighbours, not necessarily caring to - is at the root of this aberrant attitude?
Click to expand...

The phrase "box in the sky" is another example of this bizarre cultural bias. Calling houses "boxes in the mud" would be just as valid, but nobody feels they need to call them that.

I think you're right though, in that there is a bit of an inborn cultural disdain here for "anonymous" city life, which is part of what makes Toronto a bit provincial.

And living in a "box in the sky" doesn't need to imply not interacting with neighbours. Plenty of thriving communities worldwide exist in such an environment. I personally live in a "box in the sky" and I know everyone on my floor, and many other people throughout the building.
 
Still, whenever I've spoken up for the joys of urban anonymity ( having lived in a couple of "boxes in the sky" myself in the past ) I sense a defensive need to prove that they're actually quite socially interactive places. You may even be doing that too. So I think the internalization of that bias runs deep, even among high-rise dwellers.
 
Indeed, one can't live in a culture and not be affected by it. If it is true that apartment dwellers interact less with neighbours, a part of the reason could be the (misguided) cultural expectation to act in this way.

Anyhow, I don't want to steer this thread off-topic any longer.
 
I have relatives that live in some of the new suburbs that don't know any of their neighbours. Everybody sticks inside the house and drive. The cars are accessed from inside the house so you don't have to even step outside.
 
I'll have to admit ... I'm one of those in the suburbs that directly access the gararge through the house .... great way to dodge snow / rain storms :D

BUT I do talk to my neighbours though ... perhaps my area is 'old enough' with demographics where neighbours actually socialize with one another
 
Had to go all the way to Pg. 13 to find this. The developer has just posted a sign that they've applied to sever the lot at 692 Yonge St. so they can add it to their site. I guess they're sticking to their original footprint, so now it's just a matter of height.
 
severing 692 Yonge

The plan and submission to the City from Urban Capital implied that they already owned this parcel of land. Turns out they don't.

The application to sever is from Living Well Cafe at 692 Yonge Street (although it has a different name on the restaurant nowadays)

They have applied for consent to sever an L shape piece of lane to 15 St. Mary's.
 
Second design for 15 St. Mary's

Urban capital has resubmitted to the City. The new design is 29 storeys, with 266 suites and 128 parking spots on 4 levels.

The design still needs work, at one point, the building is 3.38 meters from the Scientology building (standard zoning is 5.5 meters)

Pressure is now on to Kyle Rae and City Planner Melanie Melnyk to have an other community consultation. The 250+ people that showed up last time will no doubt wish to weigh in on this design.
 
I suspect this will also be rejected by area residents so I don't see why the developer should attempt to appease them and just go with the original proposal. Might as well save time and money.
 
Why? Appeasement has had such a long, successful history...

chamberlain2.jpg
 
interchange42 said:
St. Nicholas actually is rather quiet - it may not look that way on the maps.live.com air photo, but it does look that way on the street itself. You can often stroll down the middle of the street without having to jump out of the way of traffic.

That said, something bigger than what is there now could work at the north end of the block... but 44 storeys? I don't know about that. Reasonable intensification of a particular site does not necessarily mean allowing whatever a developer wants: up on Wellesley East of Yonge, the buildings looking to build beside 22 have been knocked down quite a bit, and I think this one is destined to be brought down too. Across St. Nicholas from the existing 24 floor 60s building, I can see something around 26 to 28 floors being appropriate. More than that and you open the rest of the area for buildings that would box in the Victorians here.

42
Click to expand...

Janbe said:
Didn't the St Michaels project receive a lot of hostility when it was first proposed?
Nimbys fear change and the city is evolving.
Click to expand...

interchange42 said:
...and the NIMBYs 'forced' a lot of changes in the St Mikes proposal, which they should have done, as the first lousy proposal sat right on top of the park area at the south end.

This is the thing: Pemberton asked for a ridiculous plan at St Mikes so that when they changed the plans to something more sensitive they looked like community champions. In this case the developer is asking for 44 floors so that when they propose a cut down to 30 or so, they'll look reasonable too. The 44 floor thing is just a starting position. Whatever eventually gets approved here will not be that high, and it won't necessarily have a bigger footprint than the 44 floor version either.

42
Click to expand...

Couldn't have said it better myself.

42
 
Community meeting planned for June 17th

The date hasn't been finalized, but Melanie Melnyk from City Planning tells me that the City will be planning an "open house" for this evening. Kyle Rae, Planners, Developers to attend.

The community will be out in force!

Details to follow.
 
I've put that into Outlook, I'll be there too supporting the proposal providing it's a good one.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top