City of mass construction: Toronto’s unstoppable condos show no signs of slowing down

[taal]

This is why people who say keep on talking the skyline over the the streetscape make me roll my eyes. 50 floor residential towers with a single floor of retail (Aka The Pinnacle Centre) do not make for a city worth walking through!

Mildly ironic: aA is talking about vibrant neighbourhoods when it continues to design the same wrapped-balcony glass boxes over and over again. Their 1000 Bay project looks promising, but I do wish they'd innovate a bit more.

Enlighten me here; The majority of so called vibrant streets in Toronto are dominated by single story retail use no ? I think I should just leave it at that but I'll go a little further. The majority of 'citizens' could care less about the design of a building as unfortunate as that is, though they do care about the retail use, the parks they add, but generally speeking, they don't care about what's on the 2nd+ floor (e.g. above the podium). I bring this up due to your comment:

... when it continues to design the same wrapped-balcony glass boxes over and over again ...

Back to our vibrant streets, for the most part they are extremely monotone in terms of their architecture. The vibrancy comes from what they contain, their particular retail use. So there's nothing to say you can't produce such a street with endless stretches of wrapped-balcony glass boxes, it should be quite easy ...

 

[jje1000]

Enlighten me here; The majority of so called vibrant streets in Toronto are dominated by single story retail use no ? I think I should just leave it at that but I'll go a little further. The majority of 'citizens' could care less about the design of a building as unfortunate as that is, though they do care about the retail use, the parks they add, but generally speeking, they don't care about what's on the 2nd+ floor (e.g. above the podium). I bring this up due to your comment:

You miss the point of the article- architects are worried about districts becoming dominated by residential towers. They want more job-generating buildings mixed into those residential buildings. Yes, retail at the base is always nice, but it's never going to be vibrant if the only significant traffic is at 9am and 5pm. Also, the article states contrary to your claim that pedestrians care about the retail only- they care about the first 50 vertical feet of building they see (About the height of this flag)- which brings me to your second rebuttal.

Back to our vibrant streets, for the most part they are extremely monotone in terms of their architecture. The vibrancy comes from what they contain, their particular retail use. So there's nothing to say you can't produce such a street with endless stretches of wrapped-balcony glass boxes, it should be quite easy ...

Please tell me that you don't think that a street comprised of monotonous wrapped-balcony boxes is as vibrant as a street comprised of monotonous Victorian streetfronts.

The longest example of Victorian architecture I could find:
King Street West

A successful example of mostly wrapped-balcony architecture.
Dundas and Elizabeth

Which of the first 50-feet is more pleasant to be around? Even so, the first building was never intended to be pedestrian friendly anyways.

There's also a reason why those shops that make a street vibrant (Design studios on King, specialty shops on Queen East) choose to locate themselves there- the buildings are flexible and can be changed to accommodate a new purpose. Newer skyscrapers and even mid-rises tend to be more conservative in who they want in their retail units, and are more difficult to re-purpose. You usually don't go from a Dentist's Office to a full-on art studio- the owners usually don't accept it.

So, yes, it's possible to have a street filled with wrapped-balcony glass boxes- but the retail units need to be fairly flexible and the owners need to be willing to accept more radical retailers; but even then, there's no telling that good shops will chose to locate there- the architecture may be simply too monotonous. There's clearly a reason why newer developments look to break up the form- it's to make the building seem less boring.

 

[rocker]

I agree with the general concepts proposed by the architects. But I think Pinnacle Centre is a poor example when defining the problem. It has street-level retail, some "mom and pop" (not corporate) shops. It will have two restaurants (with likely patios open til 2am next summer) facing a main street. It has a busy coffee shop facing a blight on the landscape, the Gardiner Expressway, a coffee shop that Christopher Hume cited as a good example of urban design. Second, Maple Leaf Square is a solid contribution of mixed-use to the area. Third, office space exists at the AON building next door, and more will come with RBC taking a parking lot next to AON. If they build likely office space at 45 Bay, then you've got even more office use, with many employees likely taking up residence next door. I'm sure those podiums (and the podium that will go in the Menkes big development next to Harbour 60) will animate the ground level well. With the Harbourfront providing the public spaces, and hopefully with those off-ramps being removed in the future, I see the streetscape around that area being quite good.

Again, while I fully agree with Clewes, I am not sure how others can cite the Pinnacle development as a problematic one in terms of ground level mixed uses.

 

[Silence&Motion]

Call it a common architect’s dilemma: Peter Clewes, an architect with architectsAlliance, lives in a 20th-century Beaches home, but longs for a downtown condo in one of the sleekly modern buildings that he likes to design.

“The problem,†he says, “is that the downtown core, where a lot of tall buildings are being constructed, is not an area I would want to live in. It is not an issue of height and density, but of neighbourhood quality.â€

It's so ironic that it is Clewes' buildings that have been some of the biggest culprits in contributing to downtown's poor quality as a neighbourhood. Sure, buildings like Spire and Murano are sexy to look at when they're several blocks away in the background. But when you're standing right next to them, they're mind-numbingly boring.

 

[Hipster Duck]

To be honest, I don't think Toronto's neighbourhoods have suffered from the additions of condos. Most condos are placed on streets that didn't have any life to begin with. The condo wall on the northern half of Bay Street or the western end of Wellington didn't displace anything other than parking lots; Cityplace was a grass field and Liberty Village was abandoned industrial. A minority of new condo projects are built along existing commercial streets that have a certain pedestrian vibrancy; in those cases, most buildings replaced a parking lot (so, if not a vibrancy gain, certainly not a loss). A few condos have replaced perfectly decent buildings that contributed to the street's vibrancy, but I think this represents only a handful of the hundreds of condo projects that have popped up in the past ten years.

 

[TrickyRicky]

Hipster Duck, I think you are correct. However, we are starting to see some significant exceptions to this rule on streets like Yonge and Spadina. We will just have to see what the future impacts will be.

 

[Automation Gallery]

Tridel plans to build eight new condo towers next year....hmm, i know of just one.

Condo investors may head for exits

Investors rushed to buy Toronto condos in the good times, now there is a worry that they will rush for the exits as the economy weakens and they realize that profits are hard to come by in an overbuilt market.

A record number of condos were built in the past year in the Greater Toronto Area, with some 43,000 units under construction. Anecdotal evidence suggests many of the units were sold to investors who plan to rent them out, but a flood of supply hitting the market at once could drive rents below what’s needed to generate a profit


“As an industry, we’re getting pretty accustomed to people telling us that things are out of control and unsustainable,” said Mr. Ritchie, whose company plans to build eight new condo towers next year. “If this market had sprung up overnight, then maybe I’d understand. But this has been a solid contributor since 1967, and has been doing well for the last 10 years. This is not a blip.”
More........http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...-investors-may-head-for-exits/article2277142/


Hahaha..who to believe
On the same day...from the National Post, the complete opposite of the Globe

Preliminary results indicate best year yet

If their New Year’s resolutions involved selling more suites, Toronto’s condominium developers got that and more in 2011. While the final sales numbers for the year are still to be determined, the Greater Toronto Area’s condo market has already reached record highs this year, beating out 2007’s former record of approximately 22,500 condo sales.

Ben Myers, executive vice-president and editor of market research firm Urbanation, the Toronto CMA should see high-rise sales of about 26,000 to 27,000 units by year’s end.

Investor action Investors are coming out to the sales centres in droves; in fact, some buildings have been 90% to 100% investor purchased. “It really reflects Toronto’s place in the global economy,” says Mr. Vaccaro. “It has been recognized as a safe place to invest, and we’re seeing that internationally — money is making its way into Toronto. And real estate is a hard asset that foreign investors support and have an appreciation for.”

So what can we expect from 2012? At press time, Mr. Vaccaro expected anywhere between 40 and 80 new condo projects to be released through the new year. Mr. Myers was still working on his final forecast, but offered his best estimate so far. “I don’t think we’re going to get another record next year but I certainly expect that things will continue on a fairly rapid pace,” he says. “Off the top of my head, I’m expecting probably around 20,000 sales.”
More....http://life.nationalpost.com/2011/12/20/market-news-preliminary-results-indicate-best-year-yet/

 

[kkgg7]

The problem is that in most cases (Central Waterfront, Bay Street), an overabundance of residential towers makes for a very residential and withdrawn area.

Good point. central waterfront and bay steet north are probably the two most boring area in downtown. developers use every inch of land to build generic turquoise glass towers.

I don't think condos replacing even more boring parking lots is a bad thing either - at least it brings people, not cars - but the failure to introduce more retail and small business is disappointing (a grocery store is far from enough). Look at Bay St, it is turning into a more upscale St James' Park. The fact Yonge st is minutes away doesn't make it better. If we look at successful streets such as King East and King West, we immediately realize the difference.

Generally speaking, I think if a street is designed in the way that nobody but those to live there ever go as a final destination (not just passing by to another location), in downtown, it is considered a huge failure. It is not that different from the suburbs in Scarborough.

 

[fiendishlibrarian]

Good point. central waterfront and bay steet north are probably the two most boring area in downtown

Ok, I really need to address this point as it's being repeated like a mantra. Bay Street "north", whatever you mean by that, is only boring if you think every street in the city should be shoulder-to-shoulder with people, chock-a-block with patios and cafes and every other avatar of supposed urbanity. It isn't. No city in the world is like this, as that is unsustainable and detrimental to the quality of life of the city. Bay Street north (by that I mean north of, say, Gerrard) works *extremely* well for what it is. It is a very necessary buffer between Yonge and the U of T/University Avenue/hospital districts, and it's no suprise to me that so many residential buildings are being built or have been built along this strip over the past five years or so. It is a *very* desirable middle ground (literally) between Yonge's cacophony and University's sterility.

If Bay Street as it is now didn't exist, I would daresay the city would zone it into existence. The fact that it's developed the way it has is actually one of the few instances I can think of in this city where the typically haphazard approach to development has actually paid off. It would be considered an example of Bloor Viaduct-like foresight if it was actually deliberate; the fact that it's more serendipitous than anything else is even better. I'll take it. Again, this is not boring. It's boring in the sense that a 14 year old finds old concert footage John Coltrane boring. Bay Street North may actually be the most "adult" street in the city. Never, ever confuse tranquility with dullness.

And this is fine, this is as should be. If I want more than what Bay offers, I have Bloor, I have Yonge. But when I come home, yes, the quiet stroll along Bay is exactly what I'm looking for.

The feeling I get walking home along Bay is the same feeling I get walking along, say, 1st or 2nd Avenue in the 70s and 80s: mainly residential enclaves, much less hustle and bustle, with an appropriate scattering of shops and other services. Bay has this now, and it will get more over time. Would we honestly say, with a straight face, that those places are boring? Not if you wish to be taken seriously.

Again, boring Bay Street is not. If one has an incessant need for constant stimulation, then it's not your cup of tea. But cities are not - should not - be built solely as a means to satisfy fleeting, some would say juvenile, notions of what constitutes "stimulation". There has to be a balance, and this Bay Street achieves.

 

[kkgg7]

Ok, I really need to address this point as it's being repeated like a mantra. Bay Street "north", whatever you mean by that, is only boring if you think every street in the city should be shoulder-to-shoulder with people, chock-a-block with patios and cafes and every other avatar of supposed urbanity. It isn't. No city in the world is like this, as that is unsustainable and detrimental to the quality of life of the city. Bay Street north (by that I mean north of, say, Gerrard) works *extremely* well for what it is. It is a very necessary buffer between Yonge and the U of T/University Avenue/hospital districts, and it's no suprise to me that so many residential buildings are being built or have been built along this strip over the past five years or so. It is a *very* desirable middle ground (literally) between Yonge's cacophony and University's sterility.

If Bay Street as it is now didn't exist, I would daresay the city would zone it into existence. The fact that it's developed the way it has is actually one of the few instances I can think of in this city where the typically haphazard approach to development has actually paid off. It would be considered an example of Bloor Viaduct-like foresight if it was actually deliberate; the fact that it's more serendipitous than anything else is even better. I'll take it. Again, this is not boring. It's boring in the sense that a 14 year old finds old concert footage John Coltrane boring. Bay Street North may actually be the most "adult" street in the city. Never, ever confuse tranquility with dullness.

And this is fine, this is as should be. If I want more than what Bay offers, I have Bloor, I have Yonge. But when I come home, yes, the quiet stroll along Bay is exactly what I'm looking for.

The feeling I get walking home along Bay is the same feeling I get walking along, say, 1st or 2nd Avenue in the 70s and 80s: mainly residential enclaves, much less hustle and bustle, with an appropriate scattering of shops and other services. Bay has this now, and it will get more over time. Would we honestly say, with a straight face, that those places are boring? Not if you wish to be taken seriously.

Again, boring Bay Street is not. If one has an incessant need for constant stimulation, then it's not your cup of tea. But cities are not - should not - be built solely as a means to satisfy fleeting, some would say juvenile, notions of what constitutes "stimulation". There has to be a balance, and this Bay Street achieves.

I respect your opinion and people have different expectation for a downtown street. But Bay st is not "tranquil" in any sense. The problem with Bay st is that not only it doesn't have any street life, it serves as a major thoroughfare for cars and trucks which want to avoid Yonge Street. It is like a narrower highway 7 lined with condos.

I didn't suggest Bay st should be as busy as Yonge st. The fact that it is primarily residential is fine. The problem is it has almost nothing except high rise condos. I don't see any small parks/garden, not even many trees. I have seen downtown vancouver's west side which is predominantly condos as well, but it is a lot more pleasant and a lot less sterile.

If those condos are located within a square-sized area, that would be better. The fact they are all on both sides of one particular street makes it even more boring. Does anyone ever go to Bay street for a "tranquil" weekend morning? I don't think so.

Additionally, my objection towards this kind of street planning is more about its very central location. Yes, people need quiet street with less of the hustlebustle. You go anywhere north of Bloor there are plenty of them. 99% of those streets are quiet most of the time. But Bay is different. Between two subways, it is meant to be a lot livelier. I can accept small quiet pockets of downtown here and there - I actually love them, but to make the entire street all the way to Bloor this barren is unacceptable.

 

[greenleaf]

I respect your opinion and people have different expectation for a downtown street. But Bay st is not "tranquil" in any sense. The problem with Bay st is that not only it doesn't have any street life, it serves as a major thoroughfare for cars and trucks which want to avoid Yonge Street. It is like a narrower highway 7 lined with condos.

I didn't suggest Bay st should be as busy as Yonge st. The fact that it is primarily residential is fine. The problem is it has almost nothing except high rise condos. I don't see any small parks/garden, not even many trees. I have seen downtown vancouver's west side which is predominantly condos as well, but it is a lot more pleasant and a lot less sterile.

If those condos are located within a square-sized area, that would be better. The fact they are all on both sides of one particular street makes it even more boring. Does anyone ever go to Bay street for a "tranquil" weekend morning? I don't think so.

Additionally, my objection towards this kind of street planning is more about its very central location. Yes, people need quiet street with less of the hustlebustle. You go anywhere north of Bloor there are plenty of them. 99% of those streets are quiet most of the time. But Bay is different. Between two subways, it is meant to be a lot livelier. I can accept small quiet pockets of downtown here and there - I actually love them, but to make the entire street all the way to Bloor this barren is unacceptable.

To add to what fiendishlibrarian said (which I agree with), yes, I do actually take a tranquil weekend morning walk on Bay Street. In fact, on Saturday mornings I walk down to the St. Lawrence Market and on my walks I rotate between Bay, Yonge, Church, and Jarvis. They are all quiet and extremely wonderful in their own way. It's worth doing.

Unlike you, I actually live on Bay Street. In fact, I can see Bay Street and all its beautiful pedestrian, bike, and auto traffic from about Charles Street to Grenville from my living room windows. In no way is Bay Street as you describe it.

I like that it is different from Yonge. The city needs a balance between hustle and bustle, and quiet city streets. The sidewalks on Bay are twice as wide as they are on Yonge, so even if there are the same amount of pedestrians on both streets, Bay will feel more open and perhaps, less busy. It is meant to be this way. And it is okay that it is this way. The city is installing evening and weekend parking on Bay to help businesses and because the street isn't all that busy with cars then.

Also, the small green space in front of the Mowat block or whatever is called at Bay & Wellesley is one the city's sneakiest best urban parks. Lots of benches, a fountain, greenery and a nice spot to relax.

 

[AKS]

The problem is that in most cases (Central Waterfront, Bay Street), an overabundance of residential towers makes for a very residential and withdrawn area.

It's not overabundance of residential towers that makes for a very residential and withdrawn area for the Central Waterfront. It's the WEATHER that makes it a withdrawn area of the Central Waterfront. It's freezing down there in the winter. However, in the summer, it's bustling with people. There's lots of events held there. It's cold in the winter and no events, that's why no one goes there. We will have to see how Canada Square will shape up to be. If it has shelter to keep people warm and events held, maybe it can draw in crowds there.

 

[taal]

It's not overabundance of residential towers that makes for a very residential and withdrawn area for the Central Waterfront. It's the WEATHER that makes it a withdrawn area of the Central Waterfront. It's freezing down there in the winter. However, in the summer, it's bustling with people. There's lots of events held there. It's cold in the winter and no events, that's why no one goes there. We will have to see how Canada Square will shape up to be. If it has shelter to keep people warm and events held, maybe it can draw in crowds there.

Listen, at the end of the day, no matter what you do, it's not going to be very busy in the winter, heck the core in general is a lot less busier (above ground ...) in the winter. You'll see the same thing in New York / Boston / ... the list goes on.

We always strive for the 'oh it must work in the winter' but there's only so much you can do, and for the most part harbourfront center does it ! There are events in the winter for one ... skating is hugely proper, particularly there night time sessions, there are other events too. What else do you want ? Less an indoor mall ...

Other then that employment is a big factor, along with retial, there isn't much of that on the waterfront today. I think that's why (in an ideal world) the new eastern waterfront can potentially be better, because they're including a lot of employment (if it gets filled who knows...)

 

[AKS]

We always strive for the 'oh it must work in the winter' but there's only so much you can do, and for the most part harbourfront center does it ! There are events in the winter for one ... skating is hugely proper, particularly there night time sessions, there are other events too. What else do you want ? Less an indoor mall ...

I don't think it's impossible to have an indoor mall in the winter that opens up in the summer. You can add removable enclosures to close up the area. Not exactly the best example, but at York Lanes (York U), the path from Vari Hall to the bus stops are open during the summer and enclosed during the winter. It looks similar to the old Bayside render minus the winter garden in the middle.

 

[Automation Gallery]

A bit off topic, but still to do with the condo craze..

Rush to get condo plans approved amid fears of labour disruption

With City Hall labour strife on the horizon and the condo craze still firing on all cylinders, downtown Toronto city councillors will consider a stack of development applications in the new year that propose to add another 7,000 residential units to the market.

The rush to move forward on 18 projects appears to be fuelled by fears of a municipal lockout or strike. The contracts of more than 28,000 city workers expire on Dec. 31, and labour disruption would bring progress on planning to a halt.

In total, developers behind the 18 projects are proposing to construct 7,045 new units, mostly towers with a sprinkling of townhouses. The projects are up for consideration at the Jan. 10 Toronto East York community council meeting. Ten of the 18 applications are in the early stages of the planning process. These include building a trifecta of towers on the site of the former OPP headquarters at 90 Harbour St. — two that soar 70 storeys and a 31-floor office building — converting a historical church on Perth Avenue to suites and turning a heritage building in the Distillery District into a 34-storey hotel and condo.

City planners oppose two projects — a 36-storey tower at 323-333 King St. West and 11- and 15-storey towers at 621 King St. West — because they constitute “over-development” of the area.

More..............http://news.nationalpost.com/2011/1...ans-approved-amid-fears-of-labour-disruption/