Toronto Ïce Condominiums at York Centre | 234.07m | 67s | Lanterra | a—A

[Chuck]

IHow does it feel like North York? There aren't any buildings there yet! Well other than Infinity, and even that has good fundamentals (ie, street retail) even if the architecture is medicre. So what specifically don't you like about the area? Other than the lack of historic buildings, I don't see how it'll be fundamentally different from the financial district.

Sorry, I'll have to disagree. Development south of the highway just doesn't look to be emerging as very pedestrian-friendly, and therefore not very urban:

I decline to comment on each area's relative quality of architecture or pedestrian friendliness. But what I can say is this: I'd take NYCC over the waterfront any day. South of Front is boring, exceptionally dreary in the winter, windy, and feels isolated and disconnected from the city. There's nothing on a local or small scale to give it a neighbourhood feel.

The same could arguably be said about NYCC, but to me it feels like it's part of something, and connected to downtown by the subway. Whenever I am heading away from Harbourfront, I feel uplifted getting off the subway in the city.

 

[grey]

I think so,
No other street really show cases Toronto's financial district like Front does

Except, you know, Bay Street.

 

[Tewder]

Great post CSW2424!

"Pedestrian-friendly" is a mostly useless buzzword. On this forum it often means "where hipsters and/or yuppies walk" which means "urban" equals "where hipsters and/or yuppies live."

Take it from somebody who lived in Hamilton, 'pedestrian-friendly' is not a 'buzz word'. Mere traffic patterns can kill street life, never mind blocks of massive podiums towering over wind-swept canyons. As for North York, your experience of it is different than mine, but the fact remains that a lesson can be learned from those stretches that do seem to function better with respect to pedestrians (hipster or otherwise), than those stretches that don't. All the planning in the world can still result in an MCC if the priorities are wrong, and what Toronto should be doing is looking closely at, and learning from, the qualities of those areas in the city that do work well.

 

[caltrane74]

Great post CSW2424!

CSW2424, he does more than just take great photos.

BTW: I don't mind Front Street going east from Yonge. And while the section going west of Yonge/University is more modern it too serves it's purpose as a gateway to the entertainment district and Chinatown.

Bremmer is a brand new street, without character ( at least IMO). The ROW will help develop it, but its up to the city council and planning to determine its future after the Cityplace development is complete.

 

[scarberiankhatru]

Take it from somebody who lived in Hamilton, 'pedestrian-friendly' is not a 'buzz word'. Mere traffic patterns can kill street life, never mind blocks of massive podiums towering over wind-swept canyons. As for North York, your experience of it is different than mine, but the fact remains that a lesson can be learned from those stretches that do seem to function better with respect to pedestrians (hipster or otherwise), than those stretches that don't. All the planning in the world can still result in an MCC if the priorities are wrong, and what Toronto should be doing is looking closely at, and learning from, the qualities of those areas in the city that do work well.

You used "pedestrian-friendly" in its buzzword sense. I'd rather base the pedestrian-friendliness of places on real experiences, not renderings from a helicopter's POV.

Mississauga is doing plenty of things right and is becoming increasingly pedestrian-friendly, but that doesn't mean pedestrians will ever actually show up and walk there. Meanwhile, Front West is quite hostile to pedestrians but that doesn't stop them from walking there in reasonably large numbers, 24/7, but using your rationale, Front West is not urban.

Is the ultimate goal of pedestrian-friendliness to generate more pedestrians or is it to generate more world class strips like Queen West or to replicate the Annex a thousand times over? To steal a phrase from one of my profs, you're being a form fetishist

 

[MisterF]

I decline to comment on each area's relative quality of architecture or pedestrian friendliness. But what I can say is this: I'd take NYCC over the waterfront any day. South of Front is boring, exceptionally dreary in the winter, windy, and feels isolated and disconnected from the city. There's nothing on a local or small scale to give it a neighbourhood feel.

The same could arguably be said about NYCC, but to me it feels like it's part of something, and connected to downtown by the subway. Whenever I am heading away from Harbourfront, I feel uplifted getting off the subway in the city.

I wasn't aware of this report, but look forward to having a look! That said, my points are aimed less specifically at this project or the Union Station node, but more generally at development south of the Gardiner/Railway lines.

Well yes, a lot of the development south of Front leaves a lot to be desired, including CityPlace and some of the Harbourfront condos. But this thread is about 16 York and that picture that's being commented on focuses on the Union Station and ACC area specifically. So that's all that I'm talking about. Two of the corners at York and Bremner are under construction, a third has a proposal that's not even close to being approved yet, and the fourth has nothing on it. I don't see how anyone can talk about an emerging feel in that area in those circumstances. All we can talk about is what the buildings that are under construction and proposed will look like, what the streetscapes will be like, and how it'll be used. And I just don't see how that area will be worse than the financial district. It will have more street retail (not just elevator lobbies), the mix of uses is more varied (more residential and entertainment uses, and maybe a hotel if Fairmont ever develops the NW corner), and it won't go dead at 5 pm. And let's not forget ongoing streetscaping projects.

 

[Tewder]

You used "pedestrian-friendly" in its buzzword sense. I'd rather base the pedestrian-friendliness of places on real experiences, not renderings from a helicopter's POV.

Thanks for clarifying for me my own meaning

Mississauga is doing plenty of things right and is becoming increasingly pedestrian-friendly, but that doesn't mean pedestrians will ever actually show up and walk there. Meanwhile, Front West is quite hostile to pedestrians but that doesn't stop them from walking there in reasonably large numbers, 24/7, but using your rationale, Front West is not urban.

Following your pedantic logic then anywhere with a sidewalk is 'pedestrian-friendly', which I don't think is what anybody here is getting at...

Is the ultimate goal of pedestrian-friendliness to generate more pedestrians or is it to generate more world class strips like Queen West or to replicate the Annex a thousand times over? To steal a phrase from one of my profs, you're being a form fetishist

hmmm, I could tell you what you're being too...but I'm too polite

 

[Hypnotoad]

CSW2424, he does more than just take great photos.

Geez, shucks....

The concepts of 'pedestrian friendly' or 'walkable' (the term I used) mean different things to different people. Bremner will attract pedestrians because of the area. When it is built-up the street will be anchored by the ACC and Rogers centre. In between you'll have 2 parks, the CN tower, at least 7 residential towers, 2 office towers, 2 convention centres, street level retail, the possibility of a hotel and bike lanes, ROW steetcar and vehicle access to the entire grid. There is no way that people won't walk along this street.

In the most literal sense that is pedestrian-friendly. What it lacks is a certain quality or scale of environment to mitigate the hostility and monotony of buildings that do not come from from several different development cycles.

To make it better for pedestrians I hope that the development in the few remaining vacant (unplanned) lots take excessive strides to diversify the scale and materials. Otherwise this whole area might blend in with itself and reflect the style of the current era and risk further "hostility" to the pedestrian.

But no matter what, people will walk along Bremner. They'll probably do it all the way from the ACC to For York or the Ex. It will happen. I know this because my cell phone camera allows me to travel through time to the days of technicolour and saturation but also into the future where hypnotoads rule the TV landscape.

 

[scarberiankhatru]

CSW: You're quite sure Bremner will lack a certain quality of environment when there's almost nothing there except construction sites, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt here just because Infinity is so awful

Following your pedantic logic then anywhere with a sidewalk is 'pedestrian-friendly', which I don't think is what anybody here is getting at...

Obviously, there's a scale of friendliness...Front West ranks pretty low on that scale, North York Centre's above it, and Queen Street higher still. But to claim this has a concrete relationship with what's 'urban' or 'successful' is to whittle away the meanings of those words until they have nothing but buzzword status.

What people are getting at here (as usual) is that they want places to be more pedestrian-friendly not for the sake of pedestrians but for the sake of replicating the form of successful neighbourhoods like Queen Street; they then hope the success will trickle down to the pedestrian realm. What's wrong with some urban shades of grey? On this forum, and in your argument, there's no degree of urbanity or success between Queen Street and Mississauga.

Mister F is right: even if the lands south of the railway/Front turn out bad overall, I seriously doubt it'll be because of what's on the 4 corners of Bremner and York. It could turn out hyperurban, which is better than plain old pedestrian-friendly.

 

[Dan416]

Geez, shucks....

The concepts of 'pedestrian friendly' or 'walkable' (the term I used) mean different things to different people. Bremner will attract pedestrians because of the area. When it is built-up the street will be anchored by the ACC and Rogers centre. In between you'll have 2 parks, the CN tower, at least 7 residential towers, 2 office towers, 2 convention centres, street level retail, the possibility of a hotel and bike lanes, ROW steetcar and vehicle access to the entire grid. There is no way that people won't walk along this street.

In the most literal sense that is pedestrian-friendly. What it lacks is a certain quality or scale of environment to mitigate the hostility and monotony of buildings that do not come from from several different development cycles.

To make it better for pedestrians I hope that the development in the few remaining vacant (unplanned) lots take excessive strides to diversify the scale and materials. Otherwise this whole area might blend in with itself and reflect the style of the current era and risk further "hostility" to the pedestrian.

But no matter what, people will walk along Bremner. They'll probably do it all the way from the ACC to For York or the Ex. It will happen. I know this because my cell phone camera allows me to travel through time to the days of technicolour and saturation but also into the future where hypnotoads rule the TV landscape.

I think I'll go watch a 20-something minute episode of hypnotoad now.

 

[Tewder]

CSW: You're quite sure Bremner will lack a certain quality of environment when there's almost nothing there except construction sites, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt here just because Infinity is so awful

True Still, I share CSW's concern. The clues are there that indicate, from past experience and from looking at other cities and other areas of Toronto, not to mention looking at current development and yes those much-maligned aerial photos, that 'new' Toronto south of the highway will have little success (sorry for the buzz word)...how shall I phrase this... stimulating or supporting the sort of people-interactive streetscapes - to a degree that goes beyond merely facilitating utilitarian pedestrian activity - that some of us equate with dynamic urban places.

Obviously, there's a scale of friendliness...Front West ranks pretty low on that scale, North York Centre's above it, and Queen Street higher still. But to claim this has a concrete relationship with what's 'urban' or 'successful' is to whittle away the meanings of those words until they have nothing but buzzword status.

The term 'urban' is a multifaceted one and there are many qualities that make something urban... but these are semantics, and one can endlessly deconstruct away the meaning of everything until there is nothing to work with, which in the context of this forum seems a little coy. I concede that you can pick the most lifeless street in the city and still define it as 'urban' and/or 'successful' if you choose, but if that is what you are advocating for new development south of Toronto then I'm afraid that I still must respectfully disagree.

What people are getting at here (as usual) is that they want places to be more pedestrian-friendly not for the sake of pedestrians but for the sake of replicating the form of successful neighbourhoods like Queen Street; they then hope the success will trickle down to the pedestrian realm.

Well of course, who wouldn't want this? This is what makes Toronto a successful and urban-feeling place, unlike many other North American cities where the type of development you advocate dominates. I might be inclined to agree with you if we were at risk of every street in 'new' Toronto turning into a Queen West or a Bloor or a Yonge Street, with little diversity of urban experience, but that is hardly the concern. In fact, the concern is just the opposite, that there will be little diversity of urban experience on offer - beyond perhaps Brenmer - in the non-organic pattern/evolution of development happening here, and in the absence of innovative macro planning or vision for the area.

 

[Hypnotoad]

April 5 (and some other Bremner shots based on the recent discussion)

 

[MisterF]

True Still, I share CSW's concern. The clues are there that indicate, from past experience and from looking at other cities and other areas of Toronto, not to mention looking at current development and yes those much-maligned aerial photos, that 'new' Toronto south of the highway will have little success (sorry for the buzz word)...how shall I phrase this... stimulating or supporting the sort of people-interactive streetscapes - to a degree that goes beyond merely facilitating utilitarian pedestrian activity - that some of us equate with dynamic urban places.

But you still haven't said what it is about this development (or MLS or Telus) that will make them have little success. But I guess you're talking about south of the highway, which begs the question, why keep bringing that up in a thread about a development north of the highway? I have no doubt that the Bremner & York area will feel very different from Harbourfront.

 

[Redroom Studios]

Tewder - you are bang on, I dont know why so many here seem to be having trouble understanding what you are saying. Fine if they disagree, but why cant they grasp your clear language and well stated points?

I think your point about the development here not being organic should really make it quite clear as to what you are getting at. As well, the lack of big picture planning (macro as you put it) should be completely obvious. One is left feeling that the lots were sold off to the highest bidder with the biggest flashiest plan, for maximum profit potential. In other words its all about money and not at all about urbanity. That's the only thing that makes sense to me... can humans really get dumber from one generation to the next, forgetting all the lessons that have made successful neighbourhoods in the past? Or are they simply persuaded to ignore it by the promise of dollar signs? Then again, one would have to ask why that seems so endemic to this "wanna-be" world class city ...

 

[Hypnotoad]

When I'm talking about Bremner I'm talking about north of the highway, from ACC to Fort York.

Sure, we haven't seen any finished products yet but my concern is that all this is happening at once, as opposed to the organic nature in which other neighbourhoods developed over several cycles. And I'm not saying that failure is a foregone conclusion. Rather, based on the materials that are planned, the history of other projects and the close proximity of all these new, non-organic similar structures.

I think that Telus Tower will probably be the best of the entire stretch. But it doesn't change the fact that the entire neighbourhood comes from the same development cycle. But I'm optimistic that some diversity, attention to detail and reliance of the historical elements of this stretch might prevail to create a truly great new avenue in Toronto.