toto
Active Member
Reasons why something like this will never be built in Toronto.
Colourful. Interesting Design. Great public space. Green roofs. Nice interior spaces. Footprint uses most of the site. No window wall. Not green or grey.
|
|
|
Is CityPlace Toronto’s next ghetto?
- Thread starter Solid Snake
- Start date
Reasons why something like this will never be built in Toronto.
Colourful. Interesting Design. Great public space. Green roofs. Nice interior spaces. Footprint uses most of the site. No window wall. Not green or grey.
AKS
Senior Member
Those bridges are very useful. I remember using them often in HK. When there was a typhoon 8 hitting the city, people still wandered out for dimsum and shopping because the buildings were connected to a big mall complex and subway system. They're also useful for rainy days too. It's kind of like the path here but above ground there.
wang888
Active Member
gotta give concord some credit, providing us point buildings before anyone else did it in the city, now a sky bridge!
AlvinofDiaspar
Moderator
wang888:
I could be wrong - but the size of the floorplates of most, if not all towers in Cityplace won't qualify as "point towers".
AoD
I could be wrong - but the size of the floorplates of most, if not all towers in Cityplace won't qualify as "point towers".
AoD
Tuscani01
Senior Member
I beg to differ.
While the podium buildings and smaller buildings of CityPlace may not be point towers, the main/taller buildings are all pretty much point towers. Their corridors are wrapped around a central core that contains the elevator shaft, stairwells, and garbage disposal chutes. Most buildings have no more than 12 units per floor and their footprints are pretty small.
AlvinofDiaspar
Moderator
Tuscani:
I think they might not qualify on the basis of how "thick" they are (vs. say, Spire) - but like I have said, I could be wrong - see extant thread: http://urbantoronto.ca/forum/showthread.php/7108-What-is-a-point-tower-exactly
AoD
I think they might not qualify on the basis of how "thick" they are (vs. say, Spire) - but like I have said, I could be wrong - see extant thread: http://urbantoronto.ca/forum/showthread.php/7108-What-is-a-point-tower-exactly
AoD
Tewder
Senior Member
neubilder
Banned
Concord does only what it knows it has to to keep selling condos. If they thought they could get away with less, they would.
MetroMan
Senior Member
Last edited:
wang888
Active Member
neubilder
Banned
"Concord Adex revolutionized the way this city approaches urban design."
.... by planting single-use vertical suburbs in the middle of the city.
.... by planting single-use vertical suburbs in the middle of the city.
hawc
Senior Member
Ha, "Vertical suburbs" good one. I suppose the railways lands and surrounding downtwon area would better support semi-detached homes? I know everyone wants mixed use everything, but go into any residential area of Toronto away from the main streets and you don't have mixed use. Take Yonge/Eglinton for instance. Go North-West from that interesection and there and there's no more mixed-use until you hit Avenue road and Lawrence. It's all just residential homes and it's lovely. CityPlace is a residential area between Spadina and Bathurst (primarily) and the Gardiner and Front (it's surrounded by an incredibly vibrant downtown on every side so who cares if for that one small area there's no heavy retail presence. It might not fit the exact model of what they taught in planning school, but it's working out great. People walk to work and then come home to this community just south of Front. The only folks, who think it's 'cut off' from the rest of the city are people who've never lived there. If you asked any of hte 15,000 residents if they feel cut-off they wouldn't know what you were talking about. I'd take it over Liberty Village with it's densely packed ugly mishmash of condos and townhomes any day. Anyway, haters gonna hate. We can't all live in semis around Trinity Bellwoods and it's a hell of a lot better than commuting out to Oakville each day.
neubilder
Banned
/\ I mostly agree with you, but city place is still a poor model for city building. It is dense but it's not urban. A much better model is that which is being undertaken by Waterfront Toronto at the West Don Lands.
gristle
Senior Member
The points being that CityPlace isn't located at Yonge/Eglinton, but smack in the middle of downtown, so your parallel isn't valid. In addition, CityPlace doesn't support a terribly diverse age demographic. There is no need to build a school - as once was planned - as there are by far more dogs inhabiting that development than children. Sure, CityPlace is surrounded by an incredibly vibrant downtown, but CityPlace isn't part of it at all. It's a giant pause in that urban fabric.
hawc
Senior Member
How is it not part of the the downtown? Because you say so? CityPlace is absolutely part of its dowtown surroundings. Everyone that lives in CityPlace works or shops downtown. So what if they have to walk one or two blocks out of CityPlace to get there. The desification and pedestrian traffic is every urban planner's dream. When I lived on Briar Hill I had to walk 3 blocks over to Yonge Street, but it didn't mean I lived in a 'pause in the urban fabric' and neither is CityPlace. Did you have a better plan for the railway lands? As for the West Don Lands, I agree that it's another exciting development and I'm looking forward to seeing it come along.