Toronto Waverley | 57.09m | 15s | Fitzrovia | Kirkor

ehlow said:
That's true, it's hard to think of a lot of cities which have as many tall buildings in the distant suburbs as Toronto.
Click to expand...

if you look beyond North America, it is not hard at all.
Paris for example, has many highrise apartments in the banlieu. And Tokyo? Examples are plenty.
Having tall buildings in the suburbs is more like the norm.
 
No, it isn't. Those are just the most metropolitan cities on their respective continents.

Also, Montreal has a few high rises in the old town, for instance next to Notre Dame Basilica. That black faux-Mies doesn't look good in that context, but our Distillery District towers do. Their red brick podiums tie them into the streetscapes, while the towers have a light presence with their glass cladding and unimposing proportions.
 
I often hear people say that the price of land necessitates highrises, but isn't it the other way around? The cost of land wouldn't be so high in these areas if we had firm laws about height being 5-10 stories along these streetcar corridors. Our policies are weak and open to appeal, leading to a speculative bubble of land prices along major streets. There are areas where 40+ stories is great, but not along here in my opinion.
 
ksun said:
if you look beyond North America, it is not hard at all.
Paris for example, has many highrise apartments in the banlieu. And Tokyo? Examples are plenty.
Having tall buildings in the suburbs is more like the norm.
Click to expand...
That is not the norm at all!
 
ksun said:
if you look beyond North America, it is not hard at all.
Paris for example, has many highrise apartments in the banlieu. And Tokyo? Examples are plenty.
Having tall buildings in the suburbs is more like the norm.
Click to expand...

The point, I think, was that among North American cities it's unique. In the 60s/70s, a lot of planners in Toronto were coming in from Europe and influenced the form of Toronto's suburbs.

It's not the norm in North America, and Toronto is a North American city.

Europe is an entirely different matter.
 
Even so, in the GTA, the vast majority of the suburban belt is low-density sprawl. So in the main, it's quite in keeping with what other North American cities look like.
 
"I often hear people say that the price of land necessitates highrises, but isn't it the other way around? The cost of land wouldn't be so high in these areas if we had firm laws about height being 5-10 stories along these streetcar corridors. Our policies are weak and open to appeal, leading to a speculative bubble of land prices along major streets. There are areas where 40+ stories is great, but not along here in my opinion."

Ponyboy, I don't think this is the case. The argument you make could have a strong case but an equally strong case could be made that height restriction would raise property values also. A hypothetical scenario could occur for instance where tall buildings raise the price of specific properties surrounding them, while depressing prices in the district as a whole, and that height caps would cap extreme land prices while having an overall greater impact in raising prices in the district.
 
no, land prices would be just as high, probably much, much higher. Just as many people would want to live downtown, just not as many would be able to, instead being forced to live in some midrise way up on Sheppard or something. demand would be the same, but supply would be lower. That means higher prices.
 
innsertnamehere said:
no, land prices would be just as high, probably much, much higher. Just as many people would want to live downtown, just not as many would be able to, instead being forced to live in some midrise way up on Sheppard or something. demand would be the same, but supply would be lower. That means higher prices.
Click to expand...

You're mistaken. Land value is a function of maximum density. Land zoned for 2 FSI is worth 2x. Land zoned for 10 FSI is worth 10x.

Edit: above assumes demand exits for high density use, ie yes in Vancouver Lower Mainland, no in Sarnia.
 
Last edited:
TrickyRicky said:
"I often hear people say that the price of land necessitates highrises, but isn't it the other way around? The cost of land wouldn't be so high in these areas if we had firm laws about height being 5-10 stories along these streetcar corridors. Our policies are weak and open to appeal, leading to a speculative bubble of land prices along major streets. There are areas where 40+ stories is great, but not along here in my opinion."

.
Click to expand...

I hope when you say height being 5-10 stories, you are emphasizing in particular nothing should be shorter than 5 stories. I would agree that we don't need highrises if there is a law forbidding buildings shorter than 5 stories. Otherwise, as long as there is abundance of those two stories, even banglows downtown, there will be a lot of towers to offset that much lost density.
 
Back to the proposal. Why all the fuss? Surely 22s here is far more sensible than 60s (or even 40) at Yonge and Yorkville?
 
The Waverly Hotel will NOT be designated. The Silver Dollar Room is still up for designation though.

from http://app.toronto.ca/tmmis/viewAgendaItemHistory.do?item=2014.PB33.15

"Staff have re-evaluated the Waverley Hotel against provincial criteria and have concluded that the Waverley Hotel should not be added to the City of Toronto Inventory of Heritage Properties or designated under Part IV, Section 29 of the Ontario Heritage Act because it does not meet Ontario Regulation 9/06, the criteria prescribed by the Province of Ontario for municipal designation.

Located on the west side of Spadina Avenue north of College Street the property at 484 Spadina Avenue contains the three-and-a-half story Waverley Hotel and one-and-a-half story Silver Dollar Room. The Silver Dollar Room is currently subject to a Notice of Intention to Designate under Part IV, Section 29 of the Ontario Heritage Act."
 
"Parents at Lord Lansdowne Public School are upset the Toronto District School Board walked away from a fight over a proposed condo tower in exchange for $1 million from the developer to build a new playground.

The city and the TDSB were going to try and stop the development at an Ontario Municipal Board hearing later this month, but parents at Lord Lansdowne were surprised to learn this week that the board had settled with the builder without consulting them."

from http://www.citynews.ca/2014/11/06/exclusive-parents-upset-over-tdsbs-1m-deal-with-condo-builder/
 
Just walked past Lord Lansdowne today and I thought the recreational spaces could use an upgrade. A million dollars worth should be enough...
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top