Toronto East Harbour | 214.2m | 65s | Cadillac Fairview | Adamson

That 5% for affordable housing is pretty dismal.
215 (5% of units) as Affordable Housing is a MINIMUM in the agreement - lot of opportunities to increase that number.

Current dollar-value of the 215 x permanent Affordable Housing units is $100-MILLION ($460,000 per door).

City can make that money go further if they apply their OPEN DOOR incentives to EAST HARBOUR - and Feds / CMHC can show-up with "bulk buy" dollars for additional Affordable Housing units.

Lots of ways for additional units of Affordable Housing to be added if everyone shows-up with their cheque-books..


1650483391340.png


1650483512911.png
 
The key bits from the above:

View attachment 394333

That's a tight timeline btw stage 2 of the RFP and shovels in the ground........I shall watch with interest.

***

As a side note, I would have thought it would have made sense to wait for construction of the Flood Protection Landform.....
I thought the FPL was to be finished by 2024 in that section? But the FPL shouldn't effect the transit station construction too much as it is further west than the main station build. The FPL in this part also needs the Soap factory to be removed. As well if the FPL north of the railway is added the BMW building will be removed also.

What I am surprised is that they had a sign up for the station coming in 2022 and now it'll be ready 2028, big jump, even if they added a bunch of things. (Only pointing out the big delivery timeline shift.)
 
Then what is the point of city planning? Where is the creativity and originality? You said it beautifully but my blood is just boiling, I have become so cynical to planning and the province now; just sitting back and watching Toronto become destroyed by developers. Capitalism and greed at its finest - and in 30 years people are going to look back and wonder why such incompetence was allowed, in the same way we critique the way the city was planned in the past etc.
I understand and I get angry a lot for this reason. We have a very bad system in Ontario. A rigid policy-led system mired with contradictions, inaction, and corruption. In a normal system, planning is about setting a direction for the built & natural environment along with all of its implications, including technical, aesthetic, social, economic, and environmental considerations. It's about many things... much more than architecture or engineering. Some topics include directing development to create the best possible outcomes (land use), the design of buildings & the public realm (urban design), protecting/improving the environment and reducing emissions, providing housing options and amenities for all, transportation and infrastructure, and much more. It's a very general profession that is supposed to fill the gap of a completely free market and is about taking a larger view than just the development of one site. It's supposed to, with responsibility and due process, provide and enforce an overarching vision for private developers and government. Sometimes, this has worked in Toronto... like the Port Lands and the new Villiers Island! I mean, just look at it... it's awesome! More often than not, at least here, planning has been on the sidelines of city building (ex. transit expansion), has been reduced to mundane paperwork, is set back by our corrupt provincial government and its Tribunal, and often has itself been used to avoid any change whatsoever (NIMBYism) and even for outright evil purposes (the urban renewal projects of the 20th century with the displacement and impoverishment of millions).

Still, it remains to be the best instrument to create physical change on a comprehensive level. There's a reason why some places are worth caring about and others are huge disappointments.
That's why I still have hope.
 
I understand and I get angry a lot for this reason. We have a very bad system in Ontario. A rigid policy-led system mired with contradictions, inaction, and corruption. In a normal system, planning is about setting a direction for the built & natural environment along with all of its implications, including technical, aesthetic, social, economic, and environmental considerations. It's about many things... much more than architecture or engineering. Some topics include directing development to create the best possible outcomes (land use), the design of buildings & the public realm (urban design), protecting/improving the environment and reducing emissions, providing housing options and amenities for all, transportation and infrastructure, and much more. It's a very general profession that is supposed to fill the gap of a completely free market and is about taking a larger view than just the development of one site. It's supposed to, with responsibility and due process, provide and enforce an overarching vision for private developers and government. Sometimes, this has worked in Toronto... like the Port Lands and the new Villiers Island! I mean, just look at it... it's awesome! More often than not, at least here, planning has been on the sidelines of city building (ex. transit expansion), has been reduced to mundane paperwork, is set back by our corrupt provincial government and its Tribunal, and often has itself been used to avoid any change whatsoever (NIMBYism) and even for outright evil purposes (the urban renewal projects of the 20th century with the displacement and impoverishment of millions).

Still, it remains to be the best instrument to create physical change on a comprehensive level. There's a reason why some places are worth caring about and others are huge disappointments.
That's why I still have hope.
Thanks for the comprehensive reply. I feel like I just spend hours thinking about if only if we had buildings like London or Paris, or Copenhagen (as a contemporary model)...
You're completely right, but this is just unsustainable model of growth and all about bureaucracy — will this change? Will the younger generation start to notice this stuff? The thing I don't understand about urban design and architecture is that is a city's identity and reputation, and it is being set aside for mediocrity. There is no hiding from a city's built form. If people passing through the city are starting to get a handle on the idea that Toronto is an objectively aesthetically uniform and displeasing city, people won't want to conduct business in, to visit, or to live in TO. If it's just about jobs and housing, Ironically the city will lose interest, investment and competitiveness against other growing cities of the same size. What needs to be thought about is why people are so drawn to cities that are architecturally beautiful and where streets are built for people.

In my opinion there is no subjectivity involved when objectively all of the buildings are designed the exact same. Look at downtown Vancouver versus downtown Toronto. Identity is a lens in which city hall forgets and I'm not sure they will ever see it as importance when it authentically is to creating a competitive + liveable environment. If you read Brampton's 2040 vision, which is getting passed through council essentially now, it is LIGHT years ahead of Toronto. I think as an urban planning enthusiast you might find it inspiring.
 
i believe he was downtown, as he references a bunch of 20th century period architecture specific to the core. but whether he was downtown or on the 427 is kind of moot. it provides a summary of the city's built form that feels raw and unfiltered. and the fact that he's not an architecture critic is kind of the point, you shouldn't have to have a vast knowledge of architecture and urbanism to appreciate a city's physical form
 
It was also 10 years ago - the city has changed greatly since
 
On the one hand, he didn't seem like he knew much about architecture. On the other hand, I believe that good architecture should both please the critics and people who know nothing about architecture.

Everyone can appreciate/like architecture or dislike it.

The utility of an architecture critic is not in the value of their subjective preference, but in their ability to dissect why they have that preference and suggest (from their perspective)
improvements.

As an example most people prefer a building w/less to no spandrel, but have no idea what it's called, and may not be able to put into words what might work better.

Similarly most people exhibit a preference for symmetry; but many aren't actually aware of their own preference in that regard unless it's pointed out to them.

The critics role is not to be subjectively right (or wrong) it's to create a better understanding of what is possible; and why, in a given case that wasn't achieved.
 
A valid point since sure, lots of people might not have an academic understanding of architecture, but they know what they like (or don't).

Much of the stretch from this parcel to downtown will be completely forgettable, offering little to draw visitors or anyone living outside of the immediate neighbourhoods. Yet as the eastern gateway to downtown, and with attractions such as the Distillery District nearby, it will certainly have a high profile. I often sound very pessimistic, so I'll add that I think great things are being done at Corktown Common and I still have high hopes for Quayside, but it'll be a shame if the East Harbour opportunity is squandered.
 
i believe he was downtown, as he references a bunch of 20th century period architecture specific to the core. but whether he was downtown or on the 427 is kind of moot. it provides a summary of the city's built form that feels raw and unfiltered. and the fact that he's not an architecture critic is kind of the point, you shouldn't have to have a vast knowledge of architecture and urbanism to appreciate a city's physical form
It's like driving into New York from JFK on I-495 and looking at this and going "wow, NYC is ugly"

 
A valid point since sure, lots of people might not have an academic understanding of architecture, but they know what they like (or don't).

Much of the stretch from this parcel to downtown will be completely forgettable, offering little to draw visitors or anyone living outside of the immediate neighbourhoods. Yet as the eastern gateway to downtown, and with attractions such as the Distillery District nearby, it will certainly have a high profile. I often sound very pessimistic, so I'll add that I think great things are being done at Corktown Common and I still have high hopes for Quayside, but it'll be a shame if the East Harbour opportunity is squandered.
I think there is still potential in the Portlands too if we get another developer like henning-larsen, or acclaimed architect. My curiosity stretches to wonder why there are some developments that get award-winning architects on board (such as Quayside, Downsview, or 2150 lake) but not a major civic/commercial/residential development like East Harbour.

Where architectural excellence gets applied to arbitrary - it is like a cherry pick, and why the rest of the city doesn't get that same level of design excellence I don't know.
 
I'm sure CF will hire acclaimed architects to design the buildings - at least the offices. Isn't KPF doing the first office tower? The problem isn't who will design each building, more so that the overall site plan, proposed massing and public realm is very bad to begin with. Architecture can only do so much when the site plan is this flawed.
 
I think there is still potential in the Portlands too if we get another developer like henning-larsen, or acclaimed architect. My curiosity stretches to wonder why there are some developments that get award-winning architects on board (such as Quayside, Downsview, or 2150 lake) but not a major civic/commercial/residential development like East Harbour.

Where architectural excellence gets applied to arbitrary - it is like a cherry pick, and why the rest of the city doesn't get that same level of design excellence I don't know.
Good point regarding the Portlands, all hope isn't lost there! I too wonder why the quality is so inconsistent. While I know that not every project can have curved curtainwall, real stone and masonry, or the most cutting edge firms, I don't understand why everything has to be so monochromatic and dull. Does it really cost that much more to inject colour and material variation into a design?
 

Back
Top