Toronto Pinnacle One Yonge | 345.5m | 105s | Pinnacle | Hariri Pontarini

Discussion of general issues is an important contribution to this thread but the content is diluted if post after post fails to reference 1 Yonge itself.

By the way Adma I guarantee you that 90 percent of the population would prefer the asthetic of the building you posted over the architecture of this 1 Yonge preliminary rendering, a project that I am defending here even though I am generally not in favour of tall buildings outside specific areas of the city.
 
TrickyRicky said:
Discussion of general issues is an important contribution to this thread but the content is diluted if post after post fails to reference 1 Yonge itself.

By the way Adma I guarantee you that 90 percent of the population would prefer the asthetic of the building you posted over the architecture of this 1 Yonge preliminary rendering, a project that I am defending here even though I am generally not in favour of tall buildings outside specific areas of the city.
Click to expand...

There are plenty of urban nincompoops out there but to claim that 90% of Toronto would prefer Cheddington Cheese to Pontarini Precision is simply incorrect.

...and why are some still taking balenciaga seriously?
 
I was in Paris this summer and the urban form you r talking about was ghastly. Too many people walking in tiny alleys with dog crap puke and piss everywhere with not a tree in sight. Add in the scowling French and you have a nightmare scenario. also the constant drone of high speed traffic and blaring horns was unbearable. These Victorian areas are like parks, they have 100+ year old trees and your suggesting we knock them down and build Ghettos like Madrid. You sir are delusional. Many of them have heritage designations anyway so good luck with that.
 
rpeters said:
IMany of them have heritage designations anyway so good luck with that.
Click to expand...

Hey, im one thats not in favour of knocking down old Victorian homes, but i will tell you, most residential homes here in Toronto dont have heritage designations..ive owned a couple victorian homes in different neighbourhoods and none had a heritage designation...my 1907 eduardian home here in Parkdale, and a bunch of friends down here that own big old victorian, eduardian homes, also have no heritage designation
The sad thing is, nothing stops a developer from buying a block of these 100+ year old homes and demolishing them.....i sure hope not:mad:
 
Last edited:
+1 rpeters.

I admire very much European density. But it can go too far: I live in Barcelona right now. I am smack in the heart of a city that is almost entirely 7 storey buildings - some being among the nicest architecture anywhere in the world - and to be honest it gets tiring sometimes, though I love it of course as it has a sophisticated urban realm and culture. People flock to the parks to get space. Even Eixample, one of the nicest neighbourhoods anywhere, had originally been planned to have half of the density - each block was to be half filled by 7 storey apartments and half filled by park. Developers reneged on their promise and just built. Not that I would say the original plan was perfect, but you get the point that "European" density is fantastic but even they don't think it is always perfect. My friend from Barcelona who lived in Toronto for a year loved it there for the greenery, mostly the lawns in front of the Victorian he lived in (and also the multiculturalism of course; right now we are dealing with a conservative reactionary Catalan separatist movement in Barcelona!). We have the chance to build something in between - incorporating the best of Asia, the best of Europe, and the best of North America.

So, the debate has to be clarified. These buildings are irreplaceable and do not have to be demolished right now. They do characterize the essence of Toronto's past, and play a crucial role in its uniqueness as a city. There are so many places out there that have just built modernist architecture and they all look very similar. We can have both at the same time with smart planning of our avenues and the spaces that remain unbuilt.

Some of Huron's houses for example are pretty run down right now. Maybe a few could be lost (Especially if it were to really innovative architecture). But they don't have to be, and a lot of interesting things can be done with them to increase density now (this is where the idea of laneway houses, infill additions, and expansions becomes particularly important). There are many select spaces where buildings can go. Yes, we certainly need more in the core. But with the Portlands, the waterfront, near the rail lands, along Adelaide and Richmond, College, Dundas, etc. there are many chances to build European density without sacrificing everything. OF course College and Queen - not to mention Spandina - feature some pretty special buildings, so it would be best to be selective - though as AG points out, we can't control everything.

I also agree fully with the comment that postwar neighbourhoods are better suited for demolition - the density of our Victorian 'hoods is often underestimated. A lot more development could occur along the Subway lines (current and future), not to mention all of the spaces that surround our towers in the park from the 60s and 70s. And as to Balenciaga's point that more could afford to live downtown if we razed it all - surely a valuable idea - I would say that left to the free market this housing would only be built if it served an upper scale client, and affordability would be lost. Better to focus on Alexandra Park and TCHC expansion on available lands.

In the future - we are moving to 9.2 Million in the GTA by 2036 if all goes as estimated - we may have to reimagine the debate if all spaces have been taken up, but for now that is where this stands, and we should do what is best with what we have. Infill, laneway houses, towers, mid rise, additions - all solutions combined would result in the best outcome from where I stand.
 
Last edited:
It is ironic because AlbertC just posted an infill at 85 Huron just north of Dundas that is 4 storeys. I used to live three blocks up from this on a side street and walked by it all the time. It was a rather forgettable bungalow and had a huge yard which is being replaced by something that, while I don't like the architecture, I think I can accept as a compromise. Anyone else have any thoughts on this apropos example?

http://urbantoronto.ca/forum/showthread.php/19411-85-Huron-Street-(n-of-Dundas-2-x-4s)
 
Enough of the general Toronto low-rise tear-down debate in this thread. Let's return this to talk of 1 Yonge please.

42
 
So I wonder how long it will before we get some more info on this... I think we will be lucky to see something by the end of the year, probably 2014 before this is "officially" released to the public.
 
With all the media buzz over this one, I'm willing to bet we'll see something definite materialize by years end, and I can't wait to see exactly what is officially proposed. It's THE ideal location, with very few limiting factors, save perhaps, the grumpy old geezers aka the Queens Quay neighbourhood association, god forbid there are a little more people walking on the sidewalk, I mean, come on, that's just unacceptable, how dare someone else live near them? Seriously though, I foresee an awesome project actually standing a good chance of being constructed, hell, we may even see our first supertall at this site (the Gehry towers are nice, but not supertalls, and the casino project supertalls will be at least a decade minimum, if, and that's a big if, they are approved and not modified to death). I'll bet you all a beer we see an official proposal by the end of this year!
 
Hanlansboy said:
With all the media buzz over this one, I'm willing to bet we'll see something definite materialize by years end, and I can't wait to see exactly what is officially proposed. It's THE ideal location, with very few limiting factors, save perhaps, the grumpy old geezers aka the Queens Quay neighbourhood association, god forbid there are a little more people walking on the sidewalk, I mean, come on, that's just unacceptable, how dare someone else live near them? Seriously though, I foresee an awesome project actually standing a good chance of being constructed, hell, we may even see our first supertall at this site (the Gehry towers are nice, but not supertalls, and the casino project supertalls will be at least a decade minimum, if, and that's a big if, they are approved and not modified to death). I'll bet you all a beer we see an official proposal by the end of this year!
Click to expand...
I agree. The secret is out. We'll probably see something as soon as they're allowed to submit ;) When was the waterfront planning study suppose to be done? June?
 
Whenever they do submit an official proposal, all forum members should show up at the public meeting. Don't let these folks offer the the only feedback!

pam_yqna.jpg


yqna_party_at_ulla_s_lhd4.jpg
 
Last edited:
From Toronto Standard:

http://torontostandard.com/the-sprawl/a-brief-history-of-torontos-rejected-skyscrapers

key quote:

According to the office of Pam McConnell, the councillor in whose ward the buildings would rise, the city is looking at transportation, and whether current plans could handle this much density there. And Sara Henstock, with the city’s planning divisions, pointed to the forthcoming Lower Yonge Precinct study that lays out what the city wants for the area just to the west of the Waterfront projects like Sugar Beach and the new George Brown campus. She says it won’t be out for another six months, and that though Pinnacle is free to apply whenever they like, applying after the study comes out, and abiding by its stipulations, will increase their chance of approval.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top