Toronto 250 University | 155.76m | 47s | Northam | Arcadis

"Plopping" a 54 story condo on top of a building does not qualify as leaving the existing building alone. The existing heritage building is 8 stories high and not low-rise. The existing building is a good fit in the context and provides much-needed office space. The "lower density" is a feature, not a fault, of this intersection. This corner (Queen and University) is actually historically and architecturally important to the city and the proposed building will loom over Osgoode Hall (and shadow the small park that surrounds it), Campbell House and the Four Seasons Centre. We have to fight this!
 
Brainshrink said:
"Plopping" a 54 story condo on top of a building does not qualify as leaving the existing building alone. The existing heritage building is 8 stories high and not low-rise. The existing building is a good fit in the context and provides much-needed office space. The "lower density" is a feature, not a fault, of this intersection. This corner (Queen and University) is actually historically and architecturally important to the city and the proposed building will loom over Osgoode Hall (and shadow the small park that surrounds it), Campbell House and the Four Seasons Centre. We have to fight this!
Click to expand...
I can apply the same argument to something like a horse-drawn carriage:
The lower speed of a horse-drawn carriage is not a fault of the horse, it is its biological feature. Horse-drawn carriages have been historically and culturally important to the development of civilization as we know it. Upgrading from horses to cars will make us to go at speeds faster that we could imagine and will reduce the demand for hay, negatively impacting the hay farmers. We must fight this!
Good luck fighting the progress. Many have tried, all have failed. The effort would be better spent on fighting for the tower to respect the architecture of the podium, not fighting the tower as a concept. But to each their own, I guess.
 
Full Metal Junkie said:
I can apply the same argument to something like a horse-drawn carriage:
The lower speed of a horse-drawn carriage is not a fault of the horse, it is its biological feature. Horse-drawn carriages have been historically and culturally important to the development of civilization as we know it. Upgrading from horses to cars will make us to go at speeds faster that we could imagine and will reduce the demand for hay, negatively impacting the hay farmers. We must fight this!
Good luck fighting the progress. Many have tried, all have failed. The effort would be better spent on fighting for the tower to respect the architecture of the podium, not fighting the tower as a concept. But to each their own, I guess.
Click to expand...

You might find it interesting to reflect on the meaning of progress and a condition called the "Progress Trap." Here is a quote from the Wikipedia article: "In a progress trap, those in positions of authority are unwilling to make changes necessary for future survival. To do so they would need to sacrifice their current status and political power at the top of a hierarchy. They may also be unable to raise public support and the necessary economic resources, even if they try." The livability of our city requires thoughtful development.
 
All your doing is adding more density for the sake of it. It's not essential for maintaining population or economic growth. Cities around the global have buildings 2 and 3 storeys tall protected from development. It is not comparable to a technological or societal advance. The analogy to a horse drawn carriage is nuts. What it does do is take a quality mid modern building and cheapens it.

Every block being developed with 50 storey towers is just boring or does it create a human friendly environment and population density. No one hangs out in high rise districts. They are all in the low to midrises neighbourhoods. This applies to other cities as well.
 
Brainshrink said:
You might find it interesting to reflect on the meaning of progress and a condition called the "Progress Trap." Here is a quote from the Wikipedia article: "In a progress trap, those in positions of authority are unwilling to make changes necessary for future survival. To do so they would need to sacrifice their current status and political power at the top of a hierarchy. They may also be unable to raise public support and the necessary economic resources, even if they try." The livability of our city requires thoughtful development.
Click to expand...
I would argue that not developing this site to be a high-rise is falling into a progress trap. Lack of political will to finally upscale zoning throughout the city, and especially in the yellow belt, is the exact definition of a progress trap. Political and public unwillingness to stick more density on top of a heritage building is a progress trap. Slashing heights of building proposals for no reason, lack of political will to allow tall buildings is a progress trap.
A property of a progress trap is that unwillingness to escape it leads to depletion of finite resources. Land in Southern Ontario is a very finite resource. Failing to put up a 500 unit residential tower in downtown Toronto equates to suburban sprawl of 500 more single family detached homes in the Green Belt. There is only so much of Green Belt we can sprawl into. And once we pave over all the farmlands with cookie-cutter subdivisions, where is our food going to come from? Is that sustainable to you? Is that not a progress trap that we should be escaping?
 
Full Metal Junkie said:
I would argue that not developing this site to be a high-rise is falling into a progress trap. Lack of political will to finally upscale zoning throughout the city, and especially in the yellow belt, is the exact definition of a progress trap. Political and public unwillingness to stick more density on top of a heritage building is a progress trap. Slashing heights of building proposals for no reason, lack of political will to allow tall buildings is a progress trap.
A property of a progress trap is that unwillingness to escape it leads to depletion of finite resources. Land in Southern Ontario is a very finite resource. Failing to put up a 500 unit residential tower in downtown Toronto equates to suburban sprawl of 500 more single family detached homes in the Green Belt. There is only so much of Green Belt we can sprawl into. And once we pave over all the farmlands with cookie-cutter subdivisions, where is our food going to come from? Is that sustainable to you? Is that not a progress trap that we should be escaping?
Click to expand...

250 University Ave. is not in the yellow belt.
( http://www.mapto.ca/maps/2017/3/4/the-yellow-belt)
In your opinion, are there any buildings downtown that should not have have a 500 unit residential tower added, for the sake of progress?
 
maestro said:
No one hangs out in high rise districts. They are all in the low to midrises neighbourhoods. This applies to other cities as well.
Click to expand...

Not only does this not apply to other cities, it doesn't even apply to Toronto! Yonge/St. Claire, Yonge/Eglinton, NYCC, Literally all of downtown From North of Bloor to the lake and Spadina to ~Jarvis. In fact, downtown can't even cope with pedestrian demand on sidewalks and had to have the PATH built gradually to provide space for more pedestrians. Do you really think Danforth has as much pedestrian demand as the Entertainment District or Southcore or even the Financial District?

Not that I'm entirely in favour of this proposal, but one that is done tastefully, and especially if it maintains office space in an area that warrants it, should not be opposed just by virtue of its modification to an existing structure. Now that, is nuts.
 
Brainshrink said:
250 University Ave. is not in the yellow belt.
( http://www.mapto.ca/maps/2017/3/4/the-yellow-belt)
In your opinion, are there any buildings downtown that should not have have a 500 unit residential tower added, for the sake of progress?
Click to expand...
Well, CN Tower would look pretty dumb if you stick a residential tower on top of the spire. Let's see, what else?... Nope, that about covers it, anything else in the downtown core is fair game. I am waiting for the day when they propose to stick a circular tower on top of Roy Thompson Hall. Imagine the lines of RTH seamlessly continued into a London's Gherkin tower? How awesome would that look? But I digress... The point is, we should be increasing density where it makes the most sense - in the core of the city and along the major public transit arteries. 250 University is both. An it is not for the sake of progress, as you put it. It is for the sake of saving the last shreds of undeveloped land from urban sprawl. It's for the sake of our children and grandchildren having some nature left within a 2 hour drive of the city.
 
ADRM said:
You should check out Hong Kong and New York City at some point.
Click to expand...

I can't speak for Hong Kong but, I know New York City well. Residents do not seek out the wall to wall high rise and skyscraper parts of the city to hang out which is what is being inferred when people are say this building is too short and therefore ripe for development
 
Last edited:
DtTO said:
Not only does this not apply to other cities, it doesn't even apply to Toronto! Yonge/St. Claire, Yonge/Eglinton, NYCC, Literally all of downtown From North of Bloor to the lake and Spadina to ~Jarvis. In fact, downtown can't even cope with pedestrian demand on sidewalks and had to have the PATH built gradually to provide space for more pedestrians. Do you really think Danforth has as much pedestrian demand as the Entertainment District or Southcore or even the Financial District?

Not that I'm entirely in favour of this proposal, but one that is done tastefully, and especially if it maintains office space in an area that warrants it, should not be opposed just by virtue of its modification to an existing structure. Now that, is nuts.
Click to expand...


I specifically said where people chose to hang out. Obviously pedestrian demand for sidewalk will be greater in places with higher residential and office workers densities. That's not an indicator that these are destinations for leisure and entertainment. College is bumping well into the night. You can hear a pin drop in the Financial District after 8PM
 
True, but it's also not as if people are pining to hang out at the bottom of 250 University either...

Simplistic talk about 'height' isn't helpful. Depending on the grade treatment, height can be awful or nothing at all. Both Hong Kong and NYC are rife with examples of height done well and awfully. Details matter significantly more than bulk.
 
maestro said:
I can't speak for Hong Kong but, I know New York City well. Residents do not seek out the wall to wall high rise and skyscraper parts of the city to hang out which is what is being inferred when people are say this building is too short and therefore ripe for development
Click to expand...

I lived in NYC for four years and can tell you with certainty that is not true.
 
I grew up in NY also. The villages are definitely enjoyable, but there are some areas in midtown and the financial district that people go to as well. It's not black and white.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top