Toronto Discovery at Concord Park Place | ?m | 28s | Concord Adex | BDP Quadrangle

PUMPKINS

What happened to your band pal? Haven't heard any music from you in years! Did you OD or something?
 
Re: PUMPKINS

The people of this town deserves better for their tax dollars than mediocre and less than mediocre glass jail cells.
Click to expand...

Can I ask how my tax dollars have been spent on a private development that will be paying the province and feds significant amounts of money in income taxes, GST, CPP, EI, Land Tranfer Tax and Toronto with DC's, Building permit fees and a host of other fees. Also there will be the future value of the property taxes for the city as the land value of the area is significantly increased by the new residents. Not to mention all the construction jobs and spin off jobs and the increase in retail activity etc for the new development and riders on the Sheppard Subway (this is exactly where development should occur)

Also the developer is responsible for 100% of the internal infrastructure requirements of the future development - the city pays nothing.

I'm 100% for encouraging better streetscapes and urban design, but to try the make the argument that the taxpayer is getting beaten up by concord adex, when in fact it is the other way around. The developer will likely make a profit for the risk taken, but new development is one of the highly taxed inudstries in Canada - we the taxpayer actually benifit.
 
Re: PUMPKINS

www.mccullagh.org/db9/1ds...avenue.jpg

and yet you dislike Freed and others developing a similar streetscape in the King/Bathurst area (to expect masonry & brick construction from the pre-war area is grossly unrealistic in today's marketplace)
 
Re: PUMPKINS

Were I the resident planning czar I would have insisted on the creation of new roadways to bring this massive property into the urban grid and thereby generating a desirable urban lanscape instead of the St. Jamestown-inspired shantytown that it will undoubtedly evolve into over a short time.
Click to expand...

I think it does its best to connect to its surrounding where ever it can - to ask a develop to pay (in part) for the demolition and reconfiguring of Lake Shore's eastbound lanes and build viaducts over the railway to Front for a measley 10000 units is definitely expecting too much
 
Re: LET'S GET ANGRY!

However, I remain devoutly critical of huge foreign companies who opportunistically descend on OUR landscape to essentially rape our communities with the indelible scar of poor taste.
Click to expand...

I fail to see what foreign has to do with anything. All the rules that govern what can be built are made domestically and many domestic companies cut corners to maximize profits as well. "Foreign" is not a measure for or against quality and care of built form. One only needs to look at the automotive market to realize that companies don't create better quality simply because they are destined for local markets and one only needs to visit Europe or Japan to see that a lot can be gained by listening to people with "foreign" ideas.
 
Re: WITH PLEASURE SIR

You've heard the argument before I'm sure- build STREETSCAPES, not GIANT WIND TUNNELS. Connect the buildings to the community, don't ISOLATE them from it.
Click to expand...

jb, I find it ironic that you talk about profit, but then you show Park ave as the 'Good', which is the most expensive real estate in the USA where most won't even earn enough in their lifetime to buy an apartment in that strip that you showed.

Also, with that example, that area of Park is lacking in pedestrian traffic at most times during the day.
 
Snark Avenue

Park Avenue is a lifeless, crappy street. Too wide and too car-focussed. Not many pedestrians and few restaurants or shops. Jane Jacobs dissed it over forty years ago.
Madison and Lexington are much better Upper East Side avenues. Both their scale, which is much more intimate and narrow, the design of their buildings, and the mix of uses at grade level. Even Second Avenue, which I often knock for it's poor urban design (Toronto-like mix of good street-oriented retail in 19th Century buildings with crappy modern towers), is livelier and more interesting than Park Avenue.
Park Avenue is no doubt appreciated by Modernists though - all looks, no liveliness, park medians that you can't use, and no messy-looking shops at street level.
 
Re: Snark Avenue

the 2nd (bad) picture is biased because it is taken from the air... some of those buildings have 3-4 storey podiums (obvious at ground level) that block out the wind.
 
Re: Snark Avenue

Yeah,
The Park Ave. pic looks more like a wind tunnel to me than the CityPlace pic.
 
Re: Snark Avenue

625 sf 1 br from $223,900
750 sf 1+den from $271,900
860 sf 2 br from $286,900
920 sf 2 br from $318,900
935 sf 2 br from $321,900
940 sf 2br from $324,900
990 sf 2 br from $322,900
1,115 sf 2br from $381,900
1,205 sf 2 br from $420,900

Price includes 1 parking spot, Locker is available at $3,500 each.
Common expenses: $0.42 p.s.f. + hydro
9' ceilings, engineered hardwood floors throughout. Bathroom floors are marble.
24 hr concierge, full amenities including an indoor pool
950 sf 2+den from $312,900
It is an 18-storey high building. The second phase will be 13-storey high.
 
Re: Snark Avenue

Where is that? Man, those are cheap prices.
 
Re: Snark Avenue

This development is once again going to contain a huge amount of parking. There should be a lower price for those who do not want a parking space. Special zoning should be enacted so that developments along the subway lines are not required to have any parking spots at all. Let the developer decide whether they are necessary in order to sell the building. If they are, tax each parking space at an annual rate and devote the revenue to financing the operation of the Sheppard subway. At least that way the line won't be a permanent financial burden on the TTC.
 
Re: Snark Avenue

This development is once again going to contain a huge amount of parking
Click to expand...

Yes, because I suspect a lot of people want cars to drive on the weekend. Thats what makes Y & S such a prime location. Great access to mass transit, and easy access to the 401.
 
Re: Snark Avenue

The parking requirements will be set by the City of Toronto and won't necessarily reflect market demand for parking. The city tends to require developers to provide more parking then they can sell. So many spaces often sit empty (even though the developer had to pay to build them).

City parking requirements only encourage car use. Parking provisions should be based on market demand and not an artificially high-water mark set by the city as a condition of site plan approval.
 
Re: Snark Avenue

Actually parking requirements are primarily determined by the Ontario Building Code. For the average high rise apartment this will translate into roughly .75 - 1 parking spaces per unit.

The only place the city has much control over parking is on street and cash-in-lieu applications to reduce parking requirements. But these tools offer limited power for cities to manage its parking priorities and policies.

That being said I do agree that the requirements for parking need to change so that the number of spaces per unit is greatly reduced. There will be revision the Ontario Building Code in 2007. I know there are major changes underway for the OBC so we will have to wait and see if these requirements are changed or not. I would suspect that it will be in 2012 when many of the changes that would allow more urban forms to be built are completed to create a much more modern OBC that will allow cities and buildings to be built in more sustainable ways.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top