Toronto 100 Queens Quay at Sugar Wharf | 117.34m | 25s | Menkes | B+H

[junctionist]

It's wonderful to hear of how increasingly uncommon it is for downtown residents to drive cars. On the other hand, there's so much employment in the suburbs that it's hard to believe most people will get by fine living downtown and walking or taking transit to work.

 

[maestro]

How many people live downtown and work in the distant suburbs on a long term basis? I would expect fewer and fewer. It's just an awful stressful commute.

 

[ttk77]

I live downtown and work in Woodbridge. I still don't own a car. Transit gets me up there just fine, and I can work/read/sleep on the way. I've been doing this for 14 years now.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

How many people live downtown and work in the distant suburbs on a long term basis? I would expect fewer and fewer. It's just an awful stressful commute.

I think the figures are growing - considering how outbound Gardiner is getting congested in the morning rush.

AoD

 

[buildup]

And, I could be wrong, but I don't remember seeing as clear a breakdown of exactly what is proposed to comprise each block; from the report:

Block 1, SE corner of the site.
- LCBO office tower: 24 storeys (2-storey podium)

Block 2, NE corner of the site.
- 2 mixed-use towers: 74 and 76 storeys, respectively (5- and 9-storey podiums with a 2nd-floor bridge connecting them)
- Towers to be separated by an at-grade mews to run between Cooper and the new street to-be-created
- 1,699 residential units between the two towers
- 1,732 bicycle parking spots between the two towers (!)

Block 3, SW corner of the site.
- Mostly public park, with a 2-storey retail building on the northern edge of the block along the proposed Harbour St. extension, fronting both Harbour St. and the public park

Block 4, NW corner of the site.
- 4 residential towers: 85, 80, 70, and 65 storeys, respectively, separated by an east-west at-grade mews (4- and 5-storey podiums for the 4 towers)

This is a very interesting, and massive, development: more than 4.5 hectares.

View attachment 87676 View attachment 87677

6 towers averaging well over 70-stories. This is make or break for the City in terms of establishing its architectural cred for the next 50 years. Have to get this right, as well as Mirvish Gehry.

 

[maestro]

I think the figures are growing - considering how outbound Gardiner is getting congested in the morning rush.

AoD

Maybe. The reasoning may account for the explosion of towers around the Gardiner. Anywhere north of the core in the heart of downtown would be foolish to drive. That is also where the number of parking spots are ever decreasing.

 

[maestro]

6 towers averaging well over 70-stories. This is make or break for the City in terms of establishing its architectural cred for the next 50 years. Have to get this right, as well as Mirvish Gehry.

The massing and block plan here isn't very inspiring. Massive 800 plus unit residential towers on an interconnected shopping mall. Not my cup of tea even if the tower designs end up top notch.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

6 towers averaging well over 70-stories. This is make or break for the City in terms of establishing its architectural cred for the next 50 years. Have to get this right, as well as Mirvish Gehry.

Considering the architectural quality of this particular phase, it has a long way to go. Are we saying that the city shouldn't grant their ask until they pony up architecturally speaking?

AoD

 

[Towered]

Two kids and living downtown. Still don't own a car. We use Zipcar for the occasional car trip mainly to the suburbs.

Anecdotal but I think a true indication of the decline in cars downtown. When I first moved into my building almost 20 years ago parking spaces were rented out to others living in the building for $150-$160 a month. Today people ask $125 a month.

Same here, two kids and living downtown. Don't own a car ,and we have no intention to. It's an absolute waste of money. Ironically, I owned a car when I was single with no kids. Getting rid of it was one of the best decisions I've made.

 

[Automation Gallery]

Considering the architectural quality of this particular phase, it has a long way to go. Are we saying that the city shouldn't grant their ask until they pony up architecturally speaking?

AoD

Does the city have any control of the architectural quality of this project anymore (after almost 5 years and 5 staff reports pertaining to the Lower Yonge Precinct)??
or is it going to the OMB to get signed off and get the developer moving on this development?

 

[ADRM]

6 towers averaging well over 70-stories. This is make or break for the City in terms of establishing its architectural cred for the next 50 years. Have to get this right, as well as Mirvish Gehry.

Though I hope Menkes delivers a pleasant architectural surprise with these towers (especially given that we've already seen the rather pedestrian LCBO tower proposed here), I think that's overstating the importance of this development, especially considering we're likely to have at least one even taller tower immediately to the west of this site, as part of the 1-7 Yonge proposal.

 

[Midtown Urbanist]

Kind of amazing that between this and 1-7 Yonge next door, we have proposals for 8,154 units in the pipeline for this area. Now we just need some waterfront transit to go with the density.

Wow, that is crazy!

 

[enrigue8]

Here we are enemy of beauty.
Everything that is pretty will be rejected and history prove it many times.
So i m prepared to see ugly glass condos tower.
This is Toronto, the capital of ugly architecture.

 

[enrigue8]

I think i found a render on skyscraperpage about the condos towers proposed here.
For me it will be boring.

 

[stjames2queenwest]

Dude. You need to stop starting all your posts by trashing Toronto.
It has been discussed that there are only placeholder massing renders for these towers. The images on skyscraper page only reflect those massing studies. It is far too early to make judgements. Also glass boxes can be beautiful.