Toronto Concord Sky | 299m | 85s | Concord Adex | Kohn Pedersen Fox

^^ Keemaat doesn't want to slow down/halt high rise construction. She's on record saying that her comments have been taken out of context. She wants a holistic approach taken to development; planning shouldn't just be about the building. What she wants (and she's correct) is for infrastructure planning to be tackled in conjunction.

If that means things take longer to happen, so be it.

ADRM said:
It is indeed in the works, but mind you whatever they wind up proposing there will actually have to be approved by Council. And we're talking about potentially removing at least a lane of vehicular traffic here, so don't hold your breath.
Click to expand...

10 years ago I assumed that a regulation would have been put in place requiring all new buildings to be moved 15-20 feet back from the existing lot line on one side and/or both sides of Yonge. It was obvious back then that the whole stretch from Dundas to Bloor was going to get re-worked so I'm flabbergasted that it never happened. Because of that oversight lane removal is the only option when it comes time to widen sidewalks.

Where AURA and College Park sit would have been an ideal set back carried north to Bloor and south to the Eaton Centre. It's not like those old Victorians couldn't have been moved back with each new high rise development. Toronto always seems to clue in to what needs to be done 10 years after the fact when it's too late.
 
Last edited:
Heritage Preservation Services wants the Victorians left in place, whenever possible: they feel that as soon as you move a heritage building, you diminish its heritage value somewhat. Also, it's extremely improbable that all of the heritage buildings will end up as parts of redevelopment proposals, so you'd never get enough of them moved to get a uniformly wider sidewalk. In the meantime, where new buildings are going in, we are getting wider sidewalks, and momentum is building to narrow the street.

42
 
Jennifer is on the record as saying she wants infrastructure to catch up to the massive growth in the last few years and the proposals on the books. That will require years of work and untold amounts of cash to accomplish. If all the active construction and proposals go forward, there is no catching up. There are different schools of thought as to whether this is necessary in the first place. This is all going to play out over the next couple of years.
YSL looks a a nice addition to Yonge with heritage preservation. I just have a different opinion of the the outcome.
 
interchange42 said:
Heritage Preservation Services wants the Victorians left in place, whenever possible: they feel that as soon as you move a heritage building, you diminish its heritage value somewhat. Also, it's extremely improbable that all of the heritage buildings will end up as parts of redevelopment proposals, so you'd never get enough of them moved to get a uniformly wider sidewalk. In the meantime, where new buildings are going in, we are getting wider sidewalks, and momentum is building to narrow the street.

42
Click to expand...

I agree that a heritage building is diminished somewhat when it is moved but feel they should have made an exception on this one street. I'd also argue that practically every block on Yonge on both sides will get re-developed, re-worked, re-built. The few bits that don't could have been moved back to create the uniformity required. It's not like we don't already do this sort of thing on a massive scale: the Concourse Building, Bay-Adelaide, 88 Scott.

This should have been the long term plan for Yonge back in 2006 but it's too late now. The piecemeal approach Toronto takes to everything prevents us from achieving optimal results. Big global cities need to take a 50-100 year view to some of their development and plan on a grander scale.

We're not a large Brampton any more but still behave like one for the most part. You see evidence of it everyday. We rarely think of the city that will exist a generation or 2 from now and plan accordingly. How often do we hear someone say that some 200m building is far too tall for its surroundings? They completely negate the reality that it will be one of many others in the near future. Some bigger thinking/planning is needed. We're not a small city anymore and need to stop thinking like one.

KL is building a 500m+ building in an area where nothing over 100m presently exists. They get that they're building the KL of the future not the KL of today. In Toronto, that mindset hasn't materialized yet.
 
Last edited:
isaidso said:
This should have been the long term plan for Yonge back in 2006 but it's too late now. The piecemeal approach Toronto takes to everything prevents us from achieving optimal results. Big global cities need to take a 50-100 year view to some of their development and plan on a grander scale.
Click to expand...

That is literally exactly what the city has done and is doing with a number of neighbourhoods.
 
Framed in such a way that the YSL site is dead- centre (if someone wants to do a mock-up render feel free to do so):

33917253686_f3f4d56b0d_b.jpg
 
New official marketing video posted by Cresford. No new video renderings (yet), but it's always nice to see something official coming from the developer.

 
So, just got home from tonight's consultation. I think this thing is going through at the height they want.

It was a fairly friendly evening, a few people weren't so sure the tower was what they were wanting, one woman who lives north of the building is upset that her view south will be "compromised", questions regarding local sewer capacity (there's room), a Ryerson student thinks 367 Yonge should be saved as well for heritage reasons, and someone wants balconies on the building…

but there was zero yelling, no anger registered, nothing like what 8 Elm just across the street faced a few months ago, nothing at all of real consequence.

Canada's tallest building took a pretty big step forward tonight.

42
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top