Toronto 1 Yorkville | 183.18m | 58s | Bazis | Rosario Varacalli

urbandreamer said:
^Explain to me then many areas of NYC which have single storey buildings yet remain incredibly vibrant?

OTOH, care to explain why City Place is such a dull place to hang out on the weekend? I never say to people I know "Let's go to City Place it's so cool there!" No, I say let's go to (2s) Ossington, (1-2s) Kensington Market, (3s) Queen West.
Click to expand...

I guess you meant areas in NYC that is not Manhattan?
Look, I am not against low rise buildings. They have their purpose and I am not saying we shouldn't have any of them. However, they just don't make sense in a large city center, where land is scarce. Those 1 story buildings can be vibrant, but I am sure they are not at 42nd/Madison, are they? More like somewhere in Brooklyn. The same for downtown Toronto. The land is too precious for that kind of low density structure.

CityPlace is dull because it has no retail but lots of renters. And it is secluded from downtown by the railtracks. It is not relevant to our discussion here as I am not proposing 40 storey condos everywhere on Huron st. I am not against low rise because I don't like their look. I am against them sitting in downtown because they don't make economic sense. downtown land simply should be made better use of and serve 5X residence/business.

Ossington, Kensington, Queen W are great despite their low rise character, not because of it. If those are all 4-6 storey buildings, they will be even more vibrant and offer a lot more to us.
 
Last edited:
balenciaga said:
Ossington, Kensington, Queen W are great despite their low rise character, not because of it. If those are all 4-6 storey buildings, they will be even more vibrant and offer a lot more to us.
Click to expand...

Mz55N_zps7c9c5a70.jpg
.
 
balenciaga said:
Ossington, Kensington, Queen W are great despite their low rise character, not because of it. If those are all 4-6 storey buildings, they will be even more vibrant and offer a lot more to us.
Click to expand...

You have not defined what you mean by vibrant. Also, why would slightly taller buildings automatically result in more vibrancy? You have not explained that. CityPlace is filled with highrise developments, it isn't the most vibrant area by any stretch.
 
gristle said:
You have not defined what you mean by vibrant. Also, why would slightly taller buildings automatically result in more vibrancy? You have not explained that. CityPlace is filled with highrise developments, it isn't the most vibrant area by any stretch.
Click to expand...

I replied to both of your questions in my previous post.
Midrise buildings are not "slightly" taller. They are 2-5 times taller, resulting in considerable more people as well as business in the core. CityPlace is not vibrant because it has no retail and entertainment. It is just like a highrise suburb except it is close to the city centre.

Thanks. I am done with this issue since my position is well explained.
 
gristle said:
You have not defined what you mean by vibrant. Also, why would slightly taller buildings automatically result in more vibrancy? You have not explained that. CityPlace is filled with highrise developments, it isn't the most vibrant area by any stretch.
Click to expand...

That's because CityPlace was designed by developers, who only cared about residential matters and nothing else. There was no thought given to providing great public spaces, retail, cultural matters or anything else. Its design was too single minded. It's just bad city planning. (for the central core) It could have been a great place to put retail arcades between buildings (think Melbourne) or just build some nice public squares (think Paris) but nothing like that was even considered. Just because CityPlace had no vision or desire to create a great mixed-use district, it doesn't make an argument that it can't be done.

Sadly, few developers have any ambition or desire for city building in Toronto. When do we ever see anything creative, original and dare I say, beautiful? (not very bloody often)
 
Last edited:
Balenciaga has hit a new low. He doesn't understand character at all. He only sees higher numbers of things as good. I am not even going to waste my time.
 
CN Tower said:
I'm in the camp of "this is entirely unexceptional & bland, get rid of it and replace it with something worthy of its prime location." No McMansion mentalities along Yonge Street one would surmise.
Click to expand...

Suffice to say, there's a reason why people like you are not, and do not belong in, heritage committees. Anywhere.

But such is the nature of the beast when one is essentially conditioned within a Internet-forum realm of development fanboys or likeminded "vested interests": it's the formula for a hostile tin ear t/w anything potentially "heritage", y'know, tarred by association with Licks-style obstructionism or Lyle Studio-type retentionist travesties. It's kind of like being conditioned within a professional hockey realm where the prime role models for desirable femininity are vacuous puck bunnies.

Here's a realm for the CN Towers of the world to get tarred and feathered in.
 
Last edited:
urbandreamer said:
Balenciaga, I am referring to Manhattan. Yes, that Manhattan has many--thousands likely--1-3s buildings. I imagine you did the Times Square and tour bus horse race and think you know NYC as a result?
Click to expand...

I have been to New York City 6 times since I was a student living in the US, and have walked extensively downtown and midtown. I have 10+ friends living in New York which is why I never had to pay a cent in hotels visiting it. I am sure you are in no position to make fun of me or my travel experiences.

I don't deny Manhattan does have some low rises, but as a percentage hardly as much as what we have in downtown Toronto. Plus, show me the 1 storey houses where business and street life is thriving as you suggested in your earlier post.
 
agoraflaneur said:
Balenciaga has hit a new low. He doesn't understand character at all. He only sees higher numbers of things as good. I am not even going to waste my time.
Click to expand...

No, I consider higher density in the city centre, and better utilization of prime land, as good.
We don't live in a small town where supply of land is never an issue. We live in a major city, financial center where 500sf condos are sold for $300k+ already, and you think large pockets of land occupied by 2 storey houses less than ten minutes walk from a subway station makes economic sense?

taller midrise buildings means more units and higher affordability and therefore easier for average people to live in the city, plus more business opportunities. A two storey house's whole purpose is for a family of 4 to live in it (in the case of Huron st) or for a small business to run with 3 employees (in the case of Queen W). This is not how downtown land is supposed to work. Such land could be of more use.
 
adma said:
Suffice to say, there's a reason why people like you are not, and do not belong in, heritage committees. Anywhere.

But such is the nature of the beast when one is essentially conditioned within a Internet-forum realm of development fanboys or likeminded "vested interests": it's the formula for a hostile tin ear t/w anything potentially "heritage", y'know, tarred by association with Licks-style obstructionism or Lyle Studio-type retentionist travesties. It's kind of like being conditioned within a professional hockey realm where the prime role models for desirable femininity are vacuous puck bunnies.

Here's a realm for the CN Towers of the world to get tarred and feathered in.
Click to expand...


Unfortunately Talbot Street in London and Colborne Street in Brantford have established disturbing precedents in this province. Overwhelming public apathy, antipathy at times, to heritage/history in Ontario opens the door to insensitive developers and slams it shut to preservation efforts that might hope to have any real political backing. It's a perfect storm for development opportunism, in other words. I'm not sure how this changes.
 
adma said:
Suffice to say, there's a reason why people like you are not, and do not belong in, heritage committees. Anywhere.

But such is the nature of the beast when one is essentially conditioned within a Internet-forum realm of development fanboys or likeminded "vested interests": it's the formula for a hostile tin ear t/w anything potentially "heritage", y'know, tarred by association with Licks-style obstructionism or Lyle Studio-type retentionist travesties. It's kind of like being conditioned within a professional hockey realm where the prime role models for desirable femininity are vacuous puck bunnies.

Here's a realm for the CN Towers of the world to get tarred and feathered in.
Click to expand...

People like me huh? Thst post wins my personal award for most judgmental of this young year for sure. Where did I ever express a remote hostility to all heritage properties? This block is hardly akin to a row of Victorians in Cabbagetown afterall nor is the streetscape worth salvaging much in my opinion.

Most notably though, I can hear and appreciate your (incredibly self righteous) opinions without insulting you. Perhaps you should try a little tenderness sometime. It would go much farther in the virtual & the physical realms.
 
Last edited:
balenciaga said:
No, I consider higher density in the city centre, and better utilization of prime land, as good.
We don't live in a small town where supply of land is never an issue. We live in a major city, financial center where 500sf condos are sold for $300k+ already, and you think large pockets of land occupied by 2 storey houses less than ten minutes walk from a subway station makes economic sense?

taller midrise buildings means more units and higher affordability and therefore easier for average people to live in the city, plus more business opportunities. A two storey house's whole purpose is for a family of 4 to live in it (in the case of Huron st) or for a small business to run with 3 employees (in the case of Queen W). This is not how downtown land is supposed to work. Such land could be of more use.
Click to expand...

Of course, you're speaking in solely economic terms.

In terms of aesthetics, it's totally different. Many families value the fact that you can live in a charming Victorian 2-storey house so close downtown and not be forced into a shoebox condominium. One of the draws of Queen Street is its ambiance, created by those very 2-5 storey storefronts that you decry.

Mind you, some of the most desirable areas in New York are comprised of 2-4 storey building stock, with the occasional skyscraper: https://maps.google.ca/maps?q=green...=2I63xxgsi3VRCFd8M9qpTw&cbp=12,206.6,,0,-4.74

By rushing towards redevelopment everywhere and anywhere, you threaten to eliminate elements of Toronto which make it attractive in the first place. Sure, you can fit more retail in a new condominium, but are you guaranteed that that retail will be as interesting as before, and not simply another Rabba or a BMO?

This is not how downtown land is supposed to work. Such land could be of more use.
Click to expand...

I would caution against absolutes. Mind you, the developers of the 50s and 60s thought the same- and look how many redevelopment projects turned out.
 
balenciaga said:
Ossington, Kensington, Queen W are great despite their low rise character, not because of it. If those are all 4-6 storey buildings, they will be even more vibrant and offer a lot more to us.
Click to expand...

Not likely. Those streets are vibrant because of the style of retail development along old thoroughfares. Smaller store fronts, more businesses within a certain radius. Newer development, even the better midrises, present large expanses of street-life killing larger stores; often antiseptic chains that you can find everywhere else. In addition higher lease rates for business and rents/prices for new condos would push out all of the variety, leaving us with a retail environment similar to a shopping centre.

Streets like Queen, Dundas West, Ossington and neighbourhoods such as Kensington thrive because of their varied, and human-scaled buildings and retail environments. You can't honestly think that if we razed Kensington and replaced it with a series of 8-12 storey buildings (or even 4-6 as you've mentioned) that it would become more vibrant. You would completely destroy the environment that draws people in the first place.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top