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

[MisterF]

Well the fact thats all the lots are being developed at the same time can't really be prevented. But if you think about it, the Annex was all developed at the same time too. All the city can do is ensure that the development in this area is as high quality as possible. That's where the official plan, secondary plans, urban design guidelines, zoning, and site planning come in. An architecture review panel will be involved as well.

The history of development in CityPlace and Harbourfront doesn't really mean much. Let's look at the 16 York proposal on its own merits, and take into account that it's being held to a higher standard than a lot of past development.

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 ...

Um, you do realize that the land has always been privately owned, right? So your rhetoric about selling off to the highest bidder makes no sense. I don't think you understand how land development works. You talk about lack of master planning when we've shown you the master planning that's taken place. You haven't given any specifics.

 

[scarberiankhatru]

Let's see. People want the Bremner area to be Master-planned but with organic development, and to be built looking like the best parts of Queen Street or Manhattan in one development cycle. Not very realistic! Tewder is condemning Bremner because nearby spots such as parts of Queen's Quay West are mildly terrible (which is understandable because some of them *are*...few here would disagree). The Simcoe underpass and new Union Station exits may transform the way people walk around down there to the point that it feels like a normal part of downtown, but I acknowledge that it may take a number of years for the 'Gardiner/railway/parking lot wasteland' association to fade. These same associations also plague suburbs like Mississauga or North York, where people will refuse to recognize increasing urbanity because "they're suburbs."

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.

And you can pick a street full of life and define it as a failure or not urban, but that doesn't make it true. Again, I'm not advocating for a slice of Mississauga down by the Gardiner, I'm pointing out that there's all kinds of perfectly acceptable - sometimes even desirable - shades of urban grey between Queen Street or Midtown Manhattan and Mississauga that are ignored when people on the internet invariably pick extreme examples to try to win arguments. MisterF has already noted that the corner of York & Bremner could be as good or better than much of the existing financial district. It's basically an enlargement of the central business district...it can't be built using 3 storey buildings with graffiti-filled laneways and hundred year old houses. I'm convinced that enough is being done that the area won't automatically feel like it's south of somewhere better, particularly once the Gardiner falls/is torn down, but no matter what happens, I don't think you and others here will ever consider the area successful because it won't have the form you reflexively associate with success. Of course it's going to feel like a new neighbourhood...it *is* a new neighbourhood. Every resident will be new. Every store will be new. The sidewalks and signs will be new. We cannot build a successful neighbourhood (read: hundred year old established neighbourhood full of rich white people, yuppies, hipsters, and their accoutrements) overnight.

Well of course, who wouldn't want this?

If it's Queen Street or bust, we might as well give up and move to Vaughan. Even if we copied and pasted Queen's form all over the place, we wouldn't trigger more Queen Streets (otherwise, every pre-war 'high street' would be identical to Queen). Virtually everything depends on the type of stores/restaurants/businesses that occupy an area and the type of people that live or frequent there. Given the corporate nature of Bremner that it will initially have, perhaps we should look to Bloor West (and not the quaintness at and west of the Annex) or Michigan Avenue in Chicago for inspiration. Instead of condemning condos and skyscrapers for not living up to 19th century world class standards, we should fight for better retail spaces in them, or fight for reduced amenities requirements, or for less god-damned precast at eye level.

 

[interchange42]

Spot-frick'n-on.

42

 

[marcus_a_j]

FYI,

From an invitation from Adam Vaughan's office:

Waterfront Planning Meeting

Date: Tuesday, April 15, 2008
Time: 7:00 – 9:00 PM
Location: Metro Hall, 55 John Street, Room 310

There will be presentations about the following projects:

16 York Street (SW corner of Bremner and York)
450 Lakeshore Blvd. W. (East of Bathurst)

 

[rather_draconian]

I'll be there!

 

[harbourf]

Is it true that they are planning to widen the sidewalks of York Street and reduce the lanes to 2 Northbound directions?

 

[ProjectEnd]

Thanks for the info Marcus...I will also be there.

 

[interchange42]

Is it true that they are planning to widen the sidewalks of York Street and reduce the lanes to 2 Northbound directions?

That's north of Front street, and not related to this project.

42

 

[Tewder]

And you can pick a street full of life and define it as a failure or not urban, but that doesn't make it true.

Indeed it does. If you are reducing the definition of 'urban' to merely 'having people present' then you are oversimplifying.

Again, I'm not advocating for a slice of Mississauga down by the Gardiner, I'm pointing out that there's all kinds of perfectly acceptable - sometimes even desirable - shades of urban grey between Queen Street or Midtown Manhattan and Mississauga...

What is urban 'grey'? A place is either urban or not, has urban qualities or not. If you were to look beyond your preconceived notions of what is 'urban' you will see that it is not just 'white', it is not just about having volumes of people walking from point 'a' to point 'b' and it is not only defined by the presence of 100 year old, graffiti-covered Victorian houses, none of which necessarily implying or precluding urbanity. The urbanity you perceive in Queen Street or Midtown Manhattan or along stretches of Yonge in North York for that matter arises not from what is different about those places, but from the underlaying qualities they have in common!

We cannot build a successful neighbourhood (read: hundred year old established neighbourhood full of rich white people, yuppies, hipsters, and their accoutrements) overnight.

Who has said anything about 'rich' or 'white'? You need to question your own preconceived notions here.

If it's Queen Street or bust, we might as well give up and move to Vaughan.

Is Queen Street the only urban space you can think of in Toronto? How about Yonge Street and/or Dundas Square? Are they the same as Queen Street?

Even if we copied and pasted Queen's form all over the place, we wouldn't trigger more Queen Streets (otherwise, every pre-war 'high street' would be identical to Queen). Virtually everything depends on the type of stores/restaurants/businesses that occupy an area and the type of people that live or frequent there.

Nobody is advocating such a literal translation of Queen Street urbanity. Again, if you look at the qualities that underlay the urbanity of Queen Street, rather than looking at the specifics of what is unique to that street itself, you would see that those qualities can be translated to all kinds of development.

Given the corporate nature of Bremner that it will initially have, perhaps we should look to Bloor West (and not the quaintness at and west of the Annex) or Michigan Avenue in Chicago for inspiration. Instead of condemning condos and skyscrapers for not living up to 19th century world class standards, we should fight for better retail spaces in them, or fight for reduced amenities requirements, or for less god-damned precast at eye level.

...or we could fight for some better planning and longterm vision, which is what started this debate to begin with

 

[urbandreamer]

Some folks here need to explore Hallam Street and area to discover what a real urban area looks like. Hallam isn't cool or trendy, but it is bearable and feels like part of the City, unlike the waterfront area that is cold and detached.

On the other hand, every area of Toronto is essentially its own small town so rightly feels isolated from the greater whole. Maybe Harbourfront should just call itself a "historic neighbourhood" and that would attract the trendy retailers?

 

[ProjectEnd]

Top Secret

Spy Shots of the Podium Model...

More News...

• Complex will be around 160,000 sq/ft - Half office, half residential.
• Room for 675 cars underneath.
• 1100 Units of residential.
• Green roof. Mainly grasses etc. to replace footprint of plan. Accessible only to gardeners, maintenance, etc.
• Two part plan - build two residential towers first, then the office tower as a second phase.
• Below grade connection (PATH) to MLS and possible PATH connections to Optima Phase II
• Stoplight at the corner of Simcoe and Bremner. All other connections will be stop signed.

 

[scarberiankhatru]

Indeed it does. If you are reducing the definition of 'urban' to merely 'having people present' then you are oversimplifying.

It's your definition of urban that I took issue with. Having people present is actually a very good measure of urbanity...what the hell good is "pedestrian-friendliness" if there's no people? You forget that one critical component of pedestrian-friendliness is the sheer number of people walking around. Your definition means that Cornell is urban but Front West is not.

You need to question your own preconceived notions here.

I'm acknowledging that Toronto's suburbs and places like Bremner are urbanizing in many different ways (ways that do not converge on one monolithic version of urbanity that is highly ignorant of reality), and you base your opinions on planning buzzwords and the desire for world class neighbourhoods, but I'm the one with preconceived notions. Hilarious!

Is Queen Street the only urban space you can think of in Toronto?

You seem only interested in areas that merit inclusion on guide book maps, so why not use Queen West as an example? You've already said you'd rather see it copied and pasted all over the city than risk building something that may not turn out identical to Manhattan. North York Centre is urban, and it is not less so just because it's not trendy. You disagree, either because it's located in "the suburbs," or because it doesn't resemble a Haussmann boulevard, or because you think it's not "pedestrian-friendly" enough, as if that meant anything other than empty rhetoric.

Nobody is advocating such a literal translation of Queen Street urbanity.

You did, and you're not the only one here who'd love that. Well, to be fair, you just want the form copied and pasted...you think urbanity will follow.

...or we could fight for some better planning and longterm vision, which is what started this debate to begin with

If even one more planning report was applied to the Bremner area, it'd be the wafer thin mint that makes Mr. Creosote explode. The diverse/quality urban experience (the world class "vision") you crave is nebulously defined and pretty much unattainable unless you want to sit around for a hundred years and hope it morphs Midtown Manhattan or Queen Street. Organic development is impossible unless you'd like to see big box stores or parking lots get built on half the sites along Bremner to occupy the land for a few decades until something different is built. Not much more can be done for Bremner from the macro-side of things, so we should move to the micro side (such as smaller precast pillars at street level, better architecture, functional retail spaces, trees that have a chance of surviving more than one season, etc.).

 

[Ramako]

Wow... cool podium. Love the trees popping out. Would be an interesting effect from underneath. I don't think there's anything like that in Toronto.

Suddenly this project's supposed weakest point has become my favourite part.

 

[Mongo]

More News...

• Complex will be around 160,000 sq/ft - Half office, half residential.
• Room for 675 cars underneath.
• 1100 Units of residential.
• Green roof. Mainly grasses etc. to replace footprint of plan. Accessible only to gardeners, maintenance, etc.
• Two part plan - build two residential towers first, then the office tower as a second phase.
• Below grade connection (PATH) to MLS and possible PATH connections to Optima Phase II
• Stoplight at the corner of Simcoe and Bremner. All other connections will be stop signed.

That area cannot be right -- half of 160,000 square feet divided by 1,100 units is less than 73 square feet per unit! If the area was ~160,000 square metres, the numbers would make sense.

 

[Janbe]

How soon is the project going to the market?