MisterF
Senior Member
Curious as to which green areas you're talking about. Downtown has more parks and public open spaces now than it ever has.
|
|
|
CBC: Toronto Skyline Before and After
- Thread starter CDL.TO
- Start date
Automation Gallery
Superstar
Toronto Skyline Is Going To Look Insane
The Toronto skyline has changed radically during the last decade, but the real estate boom isn't over yet and things are set to get crazier still.
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2013/08/21/toronto-skyline-photos_n_3790837.html
The Toronto skyline has changed radically during the last decade, but the real estate boom isn't over yet and things are set to get crazier still.
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2013/08/21/toronto-skyline-photos_n_3790837.html
TheTigerMaster
Superstar
Almost too crazy for me to believe. Then again, ten years ago if somebody showed me a picture of today's skyline I wouldn't believe it either.
Anyone have thoughts on its accuracy?
Anyone have thoughts on its accuracy?
Silence&Motion
Senior Member
Can't say I'm looking forward to what climate change is apparently going to do to our sky.
Johnny Au
Senior Member
Palm trees lining University Avenue anyone?
TheTigerMaster
Superstar
I'm looking forward to the mild winters and hot summers. Out first snowless winter can't be too many years in the future.
Of course I'm playing naive.
ksun
Senior Member
Today's article about density in Toronto, and I completely agree with all points
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...-is-working-so-keep-it-going/article16087623/
Especially this : If you fear that Toronto is overbuilt, just ride the elevator to the top of the CN Tower and look down. The dense, high-rise parts of the city are only small woodlots in the vast plain of low-density and small buildings that is modern Toronto. Even downtown, seen from this height, still has lots of gaps – underused space taken up by parking lots or small buildings.
I also kind of agree with Adam Vaughan on this (I seldom agree with him): he persuaded city council’s planning and growth-management committee to ask city staff to find a way of sounding the alarm when an area approaches hyperdensity. At that point, the city could tell developers, “This neighbourhood is at capacity. Go somewhere else,” -- I prefer more balanced density across downtown as well, although he might have a much lower threshold for so called "hyperdensity" than I do. I don't think there is any hyperdense area in downtown Toronto, and he might think King West or Liberty Village is already too dense.
What do you think? Are there any neighhourhoods that are already "too dense"? Let's take a world view, not a "North American one" (In many areas a 4 story town house scares nearby residents).
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...-is-working-so-keep-it-going/article16087623/
Especially this : If you fear that Toronto is overbuilt, just ride the elevator to the top of the CN Tower and look down. The dense, high-rise parts of the city are only small woodlots in the vast plain of low-density and small buildings that is modern Toronto. Even downtown, seen from this height, still has lots of gaps – underused space taken up by parking lots or small buildings.
I also kind of agree with Adam Vaughan on this (I seldom agree with him): he persuaded city council’s planning and growth-management committee to ask city staff to find a way of sounding the alarm when an area approaches hyperdensity. At that point, the city could tell developers, “This neighbourhood is at capacity. Go somewhere else,” -- I prefer more balanced density across downtown as well, although he might have a much lower threshold for so called "hyperdensity" than I do. I don't think there is any hyperdense area in downtown Toronto, and he might think King West or Liberty Village is already too dense.
What do you think? Are there any neighhourhoods that are already "too dense"? Let's take a world view, not a "North American one" (In many areas a 4 story town house scares nearby residents).
ksun
Senior Member
Honestly, this is hardly "insane". Although looking like a lot of towers in the photo, keep in mind majority of the highrise development happened and will happen either strictly on/very close to Yonge St, or downtown west side south of Queen st.
Despite the "insane" view from east or west, if you take an aerial view from an airplane, the vast majority of the city (probably 90%?) is still dominated by lowrises not taller than 4 stories with low density. We are not like Manhattan, even our downtown will be far from that even after all the proposals are completed (not to mention Hong Kong as implied in the article).
http://img530.imageshack.us/img530/4051/small4xmto3.jpg
Toronto from CN tower: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5d/Toronto_Roy_Thomson_Hall_from_CN_Tower.jpg
-- as we can see, west of University north of King, and East of Yonge, Toronto is not that tall and dense.
Last edited:
devjohnson
Active Member
Our city is not dense at all :rip: For being a major city, everything is so spread out beyond belief. It can be a good thing, but we don't have that great of transit to reach all of these places across the city, which is why our city feels so disconnected sometimes, especially east and west.
Church Street is an area that I can't believe hasn't densifyed, especially south of Carlton down to Dundas. For being so close to Yonge, so much wasted space with parking lots and two-storey shacks.
Church Street is an area that I can't believe hasn't densifyed, especially south of Carlton down to Dundas. For being so close to Yonge, so much wasted space with parking lots and two-storey shacks.
Woodbridge_Heights
Senior Member
However the minute you come in and suggest replacing those low two storey shacks with higher density developments you run into historians who feel we should not be replacing these two storey shacks at all and 'take your development elsewhere'. You need to strike balance, and I'm sure everyone has different opinions on what that balance between high density new development and retaining older low density buildings, should be.
taal
Senior Member
Density for the sake of density is just silly ... unfortunately some on this forum fall into this, they want 300m+ because its classified as a 'supertall' or whatever the name is nowadays, they want density figures above value X because it beats out city Y.
We talk a lot about those who oppose development, unfortunately we have the opposite on this forum as well, those who want more development at all cost, not for the sake of build forum, rather just to claim we're building X buildings ..
Many of the low rise areas described in the article; An example, look at King W (or E) from the CN Tower, you see a lot of low rise buildings (4/7 stories), these are old warehouses and the built form in this area is perfect as is, we've permitted some developments but most are in the 15-20 story range, which works well here ... why do we need more height ? In other areas height works well and is appropriate ...
We talk a lot about those who oppose development, unfortunately we have the opposite on this forum as well, those who want more development at all cost, not for the sake of build forum, rather just to claim we're building X buildings ..
Many of the low rise areas described in the article; An example, look at King W (or E) from the CN Tower, you see a lot of low rise buildings (4/7 stories), these are old warehouses and the built form in this area is perfect as is, we've permitted some developments but most are in the 15-20 story range, which works well here ... why do we need more height ? In other areas height works well and is appropriate ...
ksun
Senior Member
You pretty much said exactly the words that I have in mind!!
Downtown Toronto between Bathurst and Parliament is not even dense, not to mention the entire city. Church street is an excellent example - my colleagues last week told me it looks almost exactly the same as it did 50 years ago (except a few new development). You can't imagine how many surfaces lots are sitting there collecting parking fees every day. At least a dozen, and all this within 5 minutes walking to Yonge st and the subway stations. Looking at the intersection of Church and Queen, Dundas, Gerrard, Carlton makes me depressed every time.
Jarvis st is another good example, especially between Adelaide and Wellesley. So many tiny two or three storey houses, some are pretty and well-kept, some not so much, among quiet a few surface lots. It is even worse east of Jarvis.
Not just east side, Dundas West and Queen West (between University and Bathurst), most buildings are those two story shacks you mention too! Queen W is pretty vibrant, but the buildings look really horrible and embarrassing. Is it supposed to be what our important retail street looks like? We don't necessarily need big towers. Imagine Queen W lined with mostly 6-10 storey well kept houses with more retail and residential units on the upper level, it will increase density by 3X and it still won't be dauntingly tall and overwhelming.
Taal: when we talk about more density, we don't necessarily mean 40 storey towers. I agree with you that often they don't work well with the existing neighbourhoods. What we need is more taller buildings say between 6 and 30 storeys, depending on the location. Toronto's problem is we have way too many low rise buildings (most have no historical value) that are simply not appropriate for downtown. Look at the map of intersection of Church and Dundas/Queen and that's kind of situation I am talking about.
The problem with Toronto's density (I am only walking about downtown here, north of Bloor it is incredibly sparse) is not we need more and more glass condo towers. It is we have too many 2 storey skinny shacks with no historical value like those at Church/Dundas or Queen W.
ehlow
Senior Member
ksun, honestly, based on your posts, I doubt you will ever be happy with Toronto, at least not within our lifetimes. Our city is much much smaller than NYC and will remain so, even though it is growing fast.
We are growing at a fast rate and have more high-rises under construction than any other place in North America, but as you mentioned we are no where near Manhattan and likely won't be for a very, very long time. Even if we do build to that degree, it will be architecturally different than Manhattan, since Manhattan is filled with Victorian, Edwardian, Art-Deco, & Modern buildings, our new buildings will be contemporary (we have the older styles, but not at the heights that Manhattan does).
I personally found that parts of downtown & the surrounding areas are somewhat similar to parts of Queens & Brooklyn, but obviously many parts of Queens are Brooklyn are low-rise, like most of Toronto is.
I'd like to see more mid-rise happening like DUKE, B-Street condos, and the Hive condos throughout the city, since you mentioned mid-rise.
In terms of vibrancy, one key element is narrow store-fronts, it's not necessarily about the height. Other things that matter are how narrow the street is, if there are trees, sidewalk width.
Personally I love places like this in Toronto:
http://goo.gl/maps/KP2b5
Many condos get this wrong because they have wide-storefronts and tend to attract things like banks & big chain restaurants. However, most of the condos built were built on parking lots or former rail/industrial lands, so they added vibrancy & density to the city, there is no loss.
We are growing at a fast rate and have more high-rises under construction than any other place in North America, but as you mentioned we are no where near Manhattan and likely won't be for a very, very long time. Even if we do build to that degree, it will be architecturally different than Manhattan, since Manhattan is filled with Victorian, Edwardian, Art-Deco, & Modern buildings, our new buildings will be contemporary (we have the older styles, but not at the heights that Manhattan does).
I personally found that parts of downtown & the surrounding areas are somewhat similar to parts of Queens & Brooklyn, but obviously many parts of Queens are Brooklyn are low-rise, like most of Toronto is.
I'd like to see more mid-rise happening like DUKE, B-Street condos, and the Hive condos throughout the city, since you mentioned mid-rise.
In terms of vibrancy, one key element is narrow store-fronts, it's not necessarily about the height. Other things that matter are how narrow the street is, if there are trees, sidewalk width.
Personally I love places like this in Toronto:
http://goo.gl/maps/KP2b5
Many condos get this wrong because they have wide-storefronts and tend to attract things like banks & big chain restaurants. However, most of the condos built were built on parking lots or former rail/industrial lands, so they added vibrancy & density to the city, there is no loss.
Long Island Mike
Senior Member
Everyone: This is an interesting comparison - from just 15 years ago in 1998...
I found a Toronto souvenir picture book that I had purchased on one of my early trips that was copyrighted 1978 and
one of the most interesting picture groups is looking at the skyline pictures this book has - and remembering how the
CN Tower used to almost be standing alone at its site adjacent to the then-undeveloped Railway Lands and how the bridge
over the rail tracks there used to link the Tower to the parking lots on Front Street before the Convention Centre was constructed...
To make a even more interesting comparison I would add 1988,1978,1968 and maybe 1958 skyline pictures to this topic
to show by decade how Toronto's Downtown skyline has evolved...
LI MIKE
ksun
Senior Member
I don't want Toronto to be like Manhattan. I just feel sorry that much of our prime downtown land is not be used efficiently and many building are not maintained well. I only wish with more midrises and less low rises downtown, we achieve higher and optimal density and more vibrancy.
I definitely agree with you that much of down outside the financial district looks a lot like Queens. Very much so!
The link you provided are nice, and I do see them on Yonge st between College and Bloor too. Unfortunately they are not consistent and continuous. A few steps away from what you showed, we have this
http://goo.gl/maps/sKcTQ
Same happens to Yonge st (that 501 Yonge site for example). I just don't agree with people who seem to deny the problem and instead claims such diversity (euphemism for having many ugly bui makes downtown more interesting. I at least want to the build form along Yonge and Queen to be more consistent in high and built form. King East is a fantastic example of what they can be if things are done right.
Last edited: