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

[unimaginative2]

How about some suggestions? Yes, Infinity is horrid at street level but what else? Seriously, I'd be interested in what you think should be in this area. As for the plans, I'm sure the planning reports are available to look at if you really doubt them.

How about offices that actually create jobs, right next to a transit hub to encourage ridership? I'd definitely prefer something at grade level a little better than what we're getting. Restaurants, pubs. It's right next to two stadia, a convention centre, and Union Station. Surely that's enough for more restaurants than a single St. Louis.

Here's an idea: transfer some of the much-maligned nightclubs from the Entertainment District. Separated from the rest of the city by a railway line and an expressway, I can't think of a place less likely to cause NIMBY excitement. Obviously the buildings would have to be purpose-built, which would limit the kinds of clubs that could open, but it's a thought.

 

[scarberiankhatru]

How about some suggestions? Yes, Infinity is horrid at street level but what else? Seriously, I'd be interested in what you think should be in this area. As for the plans, I'm sure the planning reports are available to look at if you really doubt them.

It's about 3 times farther than 16 York. Residential would increase diversity in that area, which is all commercial. That's never a bad thing.

300 Front is a couple hundred metres farther...close enough that I think offices should get first dibs (though, as I've said, almost any use would be preferable to a condo on a prime site like 300 Front). The condo will not increase diversity in the area, just on the block. Why is a random patchwork of land uses a good thing?

*Anything* could have been in the Bremner area. Pure offices, a huge central park, the opera house and a second ROM, a university campus, a city of Toronto museum, BMO Field, a huge hotel/restaurant/club district, and on and on. And this isn't even a creative list or one that took more than 10 seconds to compile. Lots of these things would have to be actively pursued by the city to some degree or another, which made them all equally unlikely when a few condo developers could finish the area themselves in less time. God forbid the city require anything in excess of vague "mixed-useness."

But, again, for what the area is and will be, 16 York should be a fine addition. The whole Bremner area will probably turn out OK and could turn out pretty good...all of these "could have been ideas" don't really matter.

 

[MisterF]

300 Front is a couple hundred metres farther...close enough that I think offices should get first dibs (though, as I've said, almost any use would be preferable to a condo on a prime site like 300 Front). The condo will not increase diversity in the area, just on the block. Why is a random patchwork of land uses a good thing?

*Anything* could have been in the Bremner area. Pure offices, a huge central park, the opera house and a second ROM, a university campus, a city of Toronto museum, BMO Field, a huge hotel/restaurant/club district, and on and on. And this isn't even a creative list or one that took more than 10 seconds to compile. Lots of these things would have to be actively pursued by the city to some degree or another, which made them all equally unlikely when a few condo developers could finish the area themselves in less time. God forbid the city require anything in excess of vague "mixed-useness."

But, again, for what the area is and will be, 16 York should be a fine addition. The whole Bremner area will probably turn out OK and could turn out pretty good...all of these "could have been ideas" don't really matter.

Mixing residential with commercial doesn't create a "random patchwork", it creates a mixed use neighbourhood that's less likely to be dead after 5 and more likely to have activity throughout the day, a wider variety of services, and less demand for commuting. But in the case of 300 Front it's a moot point because when it comes to land uses, anything goes in that district. BTW, there's no such thing as first dibs in planning.

Why would a single use office district along Bremner be better than a mix of offices and residential? Why should a major train station be surrounded by nothing but offices? The whole area would be a dead zone after 5. Some of your other suggestions are good, but you have to keep in mind that it's private land and it always has been. I don't know what it would cost to buy all that but we all know how broke the city is.

A massive club district would probably consist of short single use buildings, which wouldn't be taking advantage of such centrally located land at all. Besides, there's nothing preventing restaurants and bars from opening in the retail spaces that will line both Bremner and York Streets. There will be restaurants and bars in Maple Leaf Square. Even the retail in Infinity has that potential.

 

[scarberiankhatru]

Mixing residential with commercial doesn't create a "random patchwork", it creates a mixed use neighbourhood that's less likely to be dead after 5 and more likely to have activity throughout the day, a wider variety of services, and less demand for commuting. But in the case of 300 Front it's a moot point because when it comes to land uses, anything goes in that district. BTW, there's no such thing as first dibs in planning.

Why would a single use office district along Bremner be better than a mix of offices and residential? Why should a major train station be surrounded by nothing but offices? The whole area would be a dead zone after 5. Some of your other suggestions are good, but you have to keep in mind that it's private land and it always has been. I don't know what it would cost to buy all that but we all know how broke the city is.

A massive club district would probably consist of short single use buildings, which wouldn't be taking advantage of such centrally located land at all. Besides, there's nothing preventing restaurants and bars from opening in the retail spaces that will line both Bremner and York Streets. There will be restaurants and bars in Maple Leaf Square. Even the retail in Infinity has that potential.

There's no first dibs when the city lets developers run the show. It's much easier to just plan and zone for an area full of condos (aka mixed use) and have council plead for as many jobs and public uses as can be squeezed in, if that's okay and if that's not too much trouble.

Adding condos to offices won't keep the area alive after 5pm unless the condos have street retail (preferably not of the Second Cup + dry cleaners variety). As with 300 Front, there's already many, many thousands of people living practically right next door.

So what if it's private land? The city can say "you can't put a condo here." Of course, on a skyscraper fan forum, suggesting anything other than absolutely unrestricted condo development policies never goes over well.

An entertainment district need not consist of short single use buildings, especially if hotels and mini-malls were built.

 

[MisterF]

There's no first dibs when the city lets developers run the show. It's much easier to just plan and zone for an area full of condos (aka mixed use) and have council plead for as many jobs and public uses as can be squeezed in, if that's okay and if that's not too much trouble.

There's no first dibs period. The city designates land for certain uses and if a developer proposes something with those uses it'll get approved in some form after all the site plan details are worked out.

Adding condos to offices won't keep the area alive after 5pm unless the condos have street retail (preferably not of the Second Cup + dry cleaners variety). As with 300 Front, there's already many, many thousands of people living practically right next door.

They do have street retail. 16 York, for one, has retail along Bremner, York, and even Lakeshore. The city can't decide what kind of retail it's going to be. That's for the market to decide. Of course, if the urban design of the retail is what you're talking about (like avoiding another Infinity) then we can agree on that.

So what if it's private land? The city can say "you can't put a condo here."

You can't put a public land use like a park or a university on private land. You have yet to provide a compelling reason that residential should be banned in this area.

Of course, on a skyscraper fan forum, suggesting anything other than absolutely unrestricted condo development policies never goes over well.

To repeat myself, nobody has ever suggested "absolutely unrestricted condo development" on this forum. I don't know why you keep saying that. It's the debating equivalent of throwing a tantrum.

An entertainment district need not consist of short single use buildings, especially if hotels and mini-malls were built.

Restaurants and bars can just as easily go into residential buildings as hotels and malls.

 

[unimaginative2]

There's no first dibs period. The city designates land for certain uses and if a developer proposes something with those uses it'll get approved in some form after all the site plan details are worked out.

Yeah, but our city has the weakest zoning controls outside Houston. Our zoning bylaws are a joke. Look at cities like New York. Developers give huge concessions to the city, and are forced to buy air rights from heritage buildings, in order to build large towers. In Toronto, every developer knows that they'll get approval for virtually anything they propose, so there's no reason to make any kind of concessions. It wasn't always this way. We got the BCE Place galleria because we actually wouldn't have allowed those towers to be built otherwise. Could you imagine credibly making that threat today?

They do have street retail. 16 York, for one, has retail along Bremner, York, and even Lakeshore. The city can't decide what kind of retail it's going to be. That's for the market to decide. Of course, if the urban design of the retail is what you're talking about (like avoiding another Infinity) then we can agree on that.

It is for the city to decide, though. Condo developers don't really want to include retail, so they're only going to include a narrow strip on the outside of their lobbies. If they really want to attract decent retail they need deep retail units, which could mean a second-floor lobby. I'd also like to see the city force them to accept leases from local businesses instead of just chains.

You can't put a public land use like a park or a university on private land. You have yet to provide a compelling reason that residential should be banned in this area.

No... it's well within the city's power to prohibit any particular kind of development on any particular site in the city. Just as there's no way a warehouse would be permitted in the middle of the Annex, there's no reason why a condo needs to be permitted on any site in the city. It's just a matter of actually having and enforcing zoning laws.

Remember that the justification that the OMB uses to overrule the city's rare objections to a condo tower is simply that the city allows so much unrestricted condo construction that it's unjust to single out one building.

To repeat myself, nobody has ever suggested "absolutely unrestricted condo development" on this forum. I don't know why you keep saying that. It's the debating equivalent of throwing a tantrum.

But that's exactly what we have right now. Condos are built anywhere and everywhere, with virtually no city control over anything save some height guidelines and vague promises of (lousy) retail at grade.

 

[scarberiankhatru]

Yes, the design of the retail is absolutely critical to what kind of neighbourhood Bremner turns into...condos and office buildings very, very rarely support independent stores and restaurants.

To repeat myself, nobody has ever suggested "absolutely unrestricted condo development" on this forum. I don't know why you keep saying that. It's the debating equivalent of throwing a tantrum.

And to repeat myself, I think some sites would be better off with non-condo uses...a statement you're compelled to contest. All it takes is one quick glance at the Distillery thread to see evidence of people supporting unrestricted condo development.

 

[khris]

So when is this going to be really unveiled? It seems so unofficial right now.

 

[MisterF]

^The city has issues with the development so it could be a while.

Yeah, but our city has the weakest zoning controls outside Houston. Our zoning bylaws are a joke. Look at cities like New York. Developers give huge concessions to the city, and are forced to buy air rights from heritage buildings, in order to build large towers. In Toronto, every developer knows that they'll get approval for virtually anything they propose, so there's no reason to make any kind of concessions. It wasn't always this way. We got the BCE Place galleria because we actually wouldn't have allowed those towers to be built otherwise. Could you imagine credibly making that threat today?

These things are actually dealt with more at the official plan and secondary plan level than the zoning level. Zoning merely implements the OP. Developments are refused all the time. 16 York is the perfect example - it doesn't follow the secondary plan for the area which is why it's not going to be approved anytime soon.

Of course, for every call for more restrictive planning we have calls for less restrictive planning...

It is for the city to decide, though. Condo developers don't really want to include retail, so they're only going to include a narrow strip on the outside of their lobbies. If they really want to attract decent retail they need deep retail units, which could mean a second-floor lobby. I'd also like to see the city force them to accept leases from local businesses instead of just chains.

No municipality can force owners to refuse leases from a store just because it's not local. You plan for the use, not for the owner. The city can, however, help create the conditions for quality retail through design. Like I said, we agree on that. But who the owner leases to is their choice.

No... it's well within the city's power to prohibit any particular kind of development on any particular site in the city. Just as there's no way a warehouse would be permitted in the middle of the Annex, there's no reason why a condo needs to be permitted on any site in the city. It's just a matter of actually having and enforcing zoning laws.

Remember that the justification that the OMB uses to overrule the city's rare objections to a condo tower is simply that the city allows so much unrestricted condo construction that it's unjust to single out one building.

The city has to have reasons for designating land for certain uses. There has to be a reason to ban residential development in a certain area. I have yet to read a reason here that people shouldn't be allowed to live in this neighbourhood. As for the OMB, well it's a lot more complicated than that. The city doesn't look like they're going to allow purely condo at 16 York and I don't see the OMB overruling that.

But that's exactly what we have right now. Condos are built anywhere and everywhere, with virtually no city control over anything save some height guidelines and vague promises of (lousy) retail at grade.

No, condos aren't built anywhere and everywhere. You should know that just from reading this of all threads. The Planning Department doesn't like the proposal specifically because it has too much residential.

Yes, the design of the retail is absolutely critical to what kind of neighbourhood Bremner turns into...condos and office buildings very, very rarely support independent stores and restaurants.

Now you're criticising offices? You just suggested an all-office district! Hotels and malls, two uses you suggested are more appropriate for this area, are less likely to support independent retail than condos. Look around, lots of condos have independent stores. So you want offices or hotels or malls with independent retail, when condos are more likely to support indepentent retail than any of those. I really have no idea what you want.

And to repeat myself, I think some sites would be better off with non-condo uses...a statement you're compelled to contest. All it takes is one quick glance at the Distillery thread to see evidence of people supporting unrestricted condo development.

No I'm not contesting that at all. Some sites aren't appropriate for people to live on. The Distillery argument is a red herring but I'll humour you anyway. There's absolutely nothing wrong with condos on that spot. People living there is a good thing, and Pure Spirit looks like a really well designed building. I do have a problem with the height and scale of the building though, which IMO is innapropriate in that area, whether the building looks good or not.

See? Things aren't always as black and white as you think.

 

[Urban Shocker]

scarberiankhatru: The Distillery isn't about "absolutely unrestricted condo development"; two condos that were originally proposed as - if I recall correctly - 45 and 48 storeys are now 35, and none of the people posting on that thread have objected to the change.

Peter Clewes, in his recent Globe interview with Johnny Boy, accepts this reduction by the City - " ... this is a very political world, and we have to have regard for that process, then come up with the best architectural solution we can." - so it is as much about designers responding successfully to bureaucratic challeges as anything else.

With regard to "mixed-use", plenty of lowrise residential neighbourhoods are totally "dead" during the day when everyone's at work and the kids are at school, and they're "dead" at night when everyone's indoors asleep. Nobody objects - this is what residents want, this is what makes them attractive places to live. It doesn't kill people like us to go a short distance to shop, or to work, either. King and Bay on a Sunday afternoon is also "dead", but so what? - if there's nobody living there then there's nobody there to be offended by the shocking - absolutely shocking! - silence. Besides, transformations like this, from busy to quiet and back to busy again, are part of the urban experience all over the world. There are tons of places to retail shop in the downtown too, so perhaps inserting it into the ground floor ( okay, let's go for the first two floors ) of condo buildings isn't really all that necessary anyway.

 

[Mike in TO]

Yeah, but our city has the weakest zoning controls outside Houston. Our zoning bylaws are a joke. Look at cities like New York. Developers give huge concessions to the city, and are forced to buy air rights from heritage buildings, in order to build large towers. In Toronto, every developer knows that they'll get approval for virtually anything they propose, so there's no reason to make any kind of concessions.

Unimaginative,

I don't know how much time you've spent working on development planning applications or trying to work with the city (politicians/bureaucracy) as well as all the provincial land-use rules/regulations, but your above statement is completely false - so my guess is you have no experience (I say that with all due respect).

Toronto and Ontario (all land-use guidelines flow from provincial legislation) has some of, if not the most rigorous planning system in North America. The amount of time, delays, red-tape and regulatory regime in Toronto is truly mind boggling - discussions on Urban Toronto barely scrape the surface of the amount of detail involved in any decision (or lack of decision – which is often the case).

Any developer that has worked in multiple jurisdictions in North America will tell you Toronto is one of the most difficult and frustrating cities in the continent to do business in.

Toronto and Houston are polar opposites with all the other cities in North America falling somewhere in the middle.

 

[scarberiankhatru]

Now you're criticising offices? You just suggested an all-office district! Hotels and malls, two uses you suggested are more appropriate for this area, are less likely to support independent retail than condos. Look around, lots of condos have independent stores. So you want offices or hotels or malls with independent retail, when condos are more likely to support indepentent retail than any of those. I really have no idea what you want.

I'm not criticizing offices...you just think I am because you read my list of "what could have been" as a cumulative "what I want it to be." Obviously, we can't have pure offices and an entertainment/retail district and condos and whatever else. You were the one concerned about the area being dead after 5pm. If it was all offices, I wouldn't care if these few blocks were dead after 5pm. If it was all entertainment/shopping uses, I definitely *would* care. But Bremner's turning out as a mish-mash of uses, a "mixed-use neighbourhood," with not enough jobs to justify the central land it occupies, not enough retail or public/institutional space to create a great neighbourhood, and not enough architectural/tourist/whatever interest to fulfill the zillion grand plans for the area.

Sure, lots of mediocre skyscrapers will be built, and pedestrians will be generated, and a very vague/blah 'downtown' atmosphere may be created, and to that end 16 York will contribute positively, but if you think Infinity and the Telus building and a bunch of condos all add up to the best possible outcome for Bremner, you have shockingly low standards (albeit more realistic standards than Tewder).

No I'm not contesting that at all. Some sites aren't appropriate for people to live on. The Distillery argument is a red herring but I'll humour you anyway. There's absolutely nothing wrong with condos on that spot. People living there is a good thing, and Pure Spirit looks like a really well designed building. I do have a problem with the height and scale of the building though, which IMO is innapropriate in that area, whether the building looks good or not.

See? Things aren't always as black and white as you think.

The Distillery argument is most certainly not a red herring. If this city will allow part of a national historic site to be torn down for condos, what chance is there that the city will approach sites like Bremner with reservations about the amount of vacant land doled out to condo developers? The city permitted the Distillery condos partially to kickstart redevelopment in the area, but almost every plot of land around Bremner is either built, under construction, or spoken for...it's a bit late for them to now worry about what kind of land use they'd like to see.

Anyway, just because I've said some sites would be better off with non-condo uses, this doesn't mean I want to ban or forbid condos...you're putting all those words in my mouth. Ultimately, I don't think we should build the condos first and ask questions later.

 

[MG22]

This may be a ridiculous question, but what exactly is going on with this project? I know it's not yet approved, but has it gone dead with the city? Just wondering ...

 

[Janbe]

The project the moving along. Lanterra even updated there site and the project has a website.

 

[MG22]

Thanks!