Toronto 561 Sherbourne | 128.01m | 43s | Medallion | Arcadis

It is an odd result. Who would have guessed that the most dense city on the continent was LA? No one. Why not? It isn't.

Whoever authored that list (no time to check who) has taken wildly varying areas to decide what constitutes a city. In Toronto's case a population of 4,400,000 or so would indicate that they are including broad swaths of Peel, York, Durham, probably some Halton. Chop it just down to the City of Toronto proper, and our density would be much higher.

Meanwhile to have LA show up as more dense than NYC would further indicate that the authors have no idea how to gauge where a city starts or ends, lumping in rural areas in with some and not with others. By extension then, the study cannot be trusted for other city stats, so the study is ultimately useless. The study sucks.

Therefore, before posting a tangential study into a thread, please please please, everybody, please check it for some common-sense comparisons first.

We want UT to be the home of High Quality melamine-free studies only. Thank you.

42
 
No, no. The study passed inspection. New Orleans is denser than Montreal and San Jose is denser than New York! High quality and no melamine!

china%20qs%20seal.gif
 
Last edited:
Okay - I've spent a little time now at citymayors' site. It certainly is trying to do some good, and they have succeeded in attracting worldwide attention through their World Mayor program, and they get a lot of hits, and they have a respectable board it would seem...

So why would they be using incompatible statistics to compare cities? It makes no sense to me...

If anyone has any insight on this, I would be happy to entertain it here in this thread for a while. If a worthwhile discussion on this emerges shortly, it will be carved off the Sherbourne rental property thread to form its own thing.

42
 
interchange42 said:
Okay - I've spent a little time now at citymayors' site. It certainly is trying to do some good, and they have succeeded in attracting worldwide attention through their World Mayor program, and they get a lot of hits, and they have a respectable board it would seem...

So why would they be using incompatible statistics to compare cities? It makes no sense to me...

If anyone has any insight on this, I would be happy to entertain it here in this thread for a while. If a worthwhile discussion on this emerges shortly, it will be carved off the Sherbourne rental property thread to form its own thing.

42
Click to expand...

This may explain part of it 42. I don't know if this subject needs it's own thread, the main point of my post was to illustrate that at 80,000 people per square kilometre, St. James Town was right up there as one of the highest density places on the planet.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
6 January 2007: The tables rank the cities with the largest land area and their surrounding urban areas by population density expressed in people per square kilometre. Most such agglomerations are economically, socially and culturally dominated by one city at their centre. Occasionally however, several cities of similar status and their suburbs make up an urban area
 
I love the idea of having Trellick-esque bridges connecting the two buildings. Does this one have a better chance of getting built because it's rental-based?
 
I am all for this project if they also renovate the existing slab as well - perhaps it should be used as the prototype under the new Towers-retrofitting program? Either way, I find these types of proposals extremely exciting.

AoD
 
the proposal will certainly help to regenerate / rejuvenate / clean up that aging complex ... whether it will sell is different question (given it is right amongst rental bldgs)
 
ooops ... yes you are correct PE, the proposal is for "408 new rental units"
 
No 3 bedroom units at all. That's unfortunate.

I like how the building is just popping right into the skinny space that it has.
 
I think this would be a very positive development for this area - I see nothing but good things including improved and expanded retail, the 400+ rental units that will be provided and the elimination of the deck over earl street. Unfortunately from the "staff report" it looks like this proposal will receive some serious push back from the bureaucrats at City Hall.

QUOTE:
"Of considerable concern to staff, is the appropriateness of the proposal’s significant scale
and massing and the minimal separation distance between the new tower and the existing
building at 565 Sherbourne Street. The proposed separation distance of 7.5 metres is well
below the acceptable range that is outlined the City s Design Criteria for the Review of
Tall Building Proposals"
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top