Southcore Financial Ctr: PricewaterhouseCoopers Tower (18 York St, bcIMC, 26s, KPMB)

I am horrible at typing , no question. I apologize, and will attempt to be more studious. Thanks guys.:cool: ( I'm not sure if I was just called a sissy, or if thats another member?)
 
jetsbackincanada said:
*deleted*
Click to expand...

Since you write incoherent posts, and resort to immature name calling when challenged, I will try to make my response as simple as possible so you can understand:

1. A diversity of population (ie, children and families) will make an area more vibrant than a population without the added dimension of the diversity of interests, incomes and ages (ie, transient singles living in 500 sq.ft. apartments). This is true even if there are tourists and business people around. That is why it is bad if all families lived in Markham and none lived in the downtown core.

2. Parks and playgrounds tend to be loved by everyone living in the city and is increasingly important considering the lack of private green and play space one has in the city. This makes a city more enjoyable to live in.

3. Rah-rah cheering ("..one of the largest , up and coming markets/economies anywhere") has nothing to do with (and provides a bad excuse) for poor urban planning and built forms.

Read those three points a few times and then you can go back to playing with your Lego skyscrapers and calling people names.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Wow, are you always so arrogant? I Never said no Kids, or no parks in the downtown core....I said Southcore area will be fine without it. Thats a four block area. So you can continue to argue with points I never made, while I go play with my legos. An extension of downtown, such as this is, doesn't need 12 story buildings. Apparently,the city planners agree with me, so I rest my case.
 
^^ Family-friendly buildings don't have to be 12 storeys or lower. Ice could have had some larger, affordable units to accommodate families, with full support from the city and the general buying public though not from investors, of course.

Wouldn't it be nice to have tons of kids growing up in Ice, MLS, Pinnacle, CityPlace, Backstage, L Tower, etc. and going to school, day care, libraries, playing fields on the waterfront or around the CN Tower? How much richer we'd all be in that scenario vs. the investor-driven demographic deserts we're getting now.
 
Last edited:
Actually, I have to side with Jets on this one. Raising children in Ice or in the Southcore area in general would seem a bit like child abuse to me. I'm exaggerating of course but what kid wouldn't prefer an actual neighbourhood to grow up in? There is nothing about this area that is designed for a child's needs (as opposed to the needs of geeky tower-obsessed parents for example), and no fancy urban 'park' among towers is going to offer the same advantages for children as a great neighbourhood.... and not to say that I think children need the suburbs either, they don't, but the financial district? really??
 
Tewder, you have grasped the point beautifully: they are not building an "actual neighbourhood" here. And that's the shame about the built form.
 
I agree as well. I think parents often put their lifestyle ahead of what might be a good neighbourhood for their children, many of which exist downtown.
 
There's a day care in MLS, there are several parks/green spaces nearby, there will be a school(s?) in CityPlace, and if a developer were so inclined they could easily offer child-friendly amenities ("road" hockey area, playgrounds, splash pads, hell, toss in a video game room like some buildings are doing now). Retail and attractions tend to follow the demographic, so I'm sure if you saw a spike in the number of kids living in an area retailers would be quick to set up shop to serve the market.
 
To be fair to Ice, they at least have a number of 3 bedrooms in the development that aren't penthouse units. Such as: Gothenberg, Valhalla, or Armena. They aren't huge, but they are much better than what most builders and buildings offer. In terms of square footage, they are not much different than family housing that was initially offered post-war in North American cities and (what are now first ring) suburbs.

I seem to recall seeing some playground equipment at the Roundhouse Park, which is just a block away. Google maps doesn't help, but interestingly enough, on google streeview there is a woman pushing a stroller along Lower Simcoe Street near the Gardiner. Even if a park is not there, I'm sure if the community banded together they could find a way to make it happen.

I agree that there isn't necessarily a neighbourhood being built here right now. It will be interesting to see the adaptability and creativity of space in the podiums of these condos as the locale evolves.

I also wonder if the issue here among forumers is a values difference. For someone who lives or works in southcore [trying to bring this around to topic] or works in the financial district or anywhere along the subway line, I'd imagine this would be a pretty compelling place to be. To me, if the parents and their children live and work downtown, it presumes that they have a shorter commute and thus would have more time to spend with their children. In my mind, my time is way more important than space or a small backyard space where my kids can run around.
 
Tewder said:
Actually, I have to side with Jets on this one. Raising children in Ice or in the Southcore area in general would seem a bit like child abuse to me. I'm exaggerating of course but what kid wouldn't prefer an actual neighbourhood to grow up in? There is nothing about this area that is designed for a child's needs (as opposed to the needs of geeky tower-obsessed parents for example), and no fancy urban 'park' among towers is going to offer the same advantages for children as a great neighbourhood.... and not to say that I think children need the suburbs either, they don't, but the financial district? really??
Click to expand...

The truly sad point about all of this is that we are creating a downtown that is not desigmed for families unless they can afford a home, which at Toronto prices is unacheivable for all except the most affluent. End reslt - we push our families out to the suburbs.
 
greenleaf said:
To be fair to Ice, they at least have a number of 3 bedrooms in the development that aren't penthouse units. Such as: Gothenberg, Valhalla, or Armena. They aren't huge, but they are much better than what most builders and buildings offer. In terms of square footage, they are not much different than family housing that was initially offered post-war in North American cities and (what are now first ring) suburbs.
Click to expand...

Is it just me or do some of those bedrooms not have doors?
 
Coruscanti Cognoscente said:
Is it just me or do some of those bedrooms not have doors?
Click to expand...

They have sliding doors.

As for playgrounds. The city could help my adding playgrounds to the park area. Swings, slides and such. Cityplace has a large park but no playground which I think could easily be added. There's a water area at least to cool down. Also a play field for catch ball. The sildes/playground at roundhouse is a bit lame but it's better than nothing. Parade has a sandbox area for kids to play but it's private amenities.
 
There's so much "downtown" in Toronto, thats not the financial district. My remarks are purely in reference to the densest area on Bay, and this new extension of that. For the record, 1 of the reasons I think Toronto, is so excellent, is the diverse residential market that exists for almost all citizens from all walks of life.
The population of downtown is hard to measure consistently from city to city, and without question Toronto, offers more real estate downtown, to all brackets of income then most places, The fact kids can be raised here is wonderful. What is the pop. of downtown 150,000??
This area with its off ramps, freeways, buses, trains and subways, plus the entertainment and sports, lends itself to a younger, more transient clientele.
So Alklay, I'm just curious as why you think , a more traditional neighborhood is more appropriate here?? Given the location is not anything, but an extension of the financial district. Mid size density is great, but in the shadows of the bank towers, I feel this is the right choice.
 
I am just saying that families would make the area more vibrant. There is a big difference to as to how vibrant King and Bay is on evenings and weekends, as opposed to Bloor Street in the Annex. If one is satisfied with the street life that is provided by a large percentage of office buildings, then this area is great. Thats all I am saying.
 
5 years from now, the mix of office and retail/ residential, should make this a pretty lively area,,throw in the arenas and this will be a fun destination. The bar at Ice II is gonna be the spot!!:rolleyes:
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top