Toronto 1140 Yonge Street | 44.95m | 10s | Devron Developments | AUDAX

[daniel_kryz]

in the moment...overreacting

It's okay, we all want Toronto to get better

 

[emphurent]

Something to look forward to since LPAT may take a while, It looks as if we'll still be getting something nice in the interm.

Currently the building is being gutted to create two new storefronts according to permits filed recently. This work will include restoration of the façade (including removing the random sections added by staples), new windows and i'd imagine removal of the paint aswell.

So glad this won't be sitting empty.

I haven't been by in a bit but I noticed work going on here recently: (Photo Source)

 

[ookpik]

it would just ruin the neighbourhood forever

Honestly what are you even talking about

 

[UtakataNoAnnex]

Honestly what are you even talking about

It makes much more sense if you read in the context of the whole post...

 

[ookpik]

It makes much more sense if you read in the context of the whole post...

I read the whole post. None of a 13, 15 or 21 storey building would “ruin the neighbourhood forever” lmao. I have no patience or respect for the notion that we must forever kowtow to rich people and their houses, entrenching their wealth and “protecting” them from the horrors of shadow, 1% reduced sky view, more people on the sidewalk, etc. I just don’t care and I think it’s inequitable the way the OP builds a policy fortress around Neighbourhoods. If you live a stone’s throw from Yonge St and multiple subway stations, parks and schools, retail and offices, in a $2, $3, $4, $5+-million house, you should have some responsibility and tolerance for growth along with the privilege of living there. A well-designed tall building does not “ruin” a neighbourhood and I will not stand for this drivel!!

 

[evandyk]

A 40 storey tower there would not ruin the neighbourhood. It would make it better.

 

[thecharioteer]

One has to look at the concept of "protecting" neighbourhoods in the historical planning context of the 1970's. At that time, entire neighbourhoods such as North St. Jamestown and Quebec/Gothic in High Park were being razed for high-rise development, following the 1960's pattern of development in areas like Yonge/Eglinton and Yonge/St. Clair. The "reform" council of the early 70's, made up of members such as David Crombie, John Sewell and Karl Jaffary, were elected to do things differently and the new Central Area Plan was introduced by the planners with the intent of protecting these neighbourhoods under threat of wholesale urban renewal. All subsequent Official Plans since that time have built on these concepts, however the concept of "protection" morphed from preventing the whole-sale demolition of downtown low-rise neighbourhoods to minimizing impact on flanking streets by way of height limits, angular planes and setbacks. What we have now in the OP and Tall Building Guidelines is (for the most part) overkill, and we've seen these conflicts arise time and time again because of how the laudable intentions of the planners in the 1970's have become misused to prevent reasonable developments near or within the "Neighbourhoods"

 

[ookpik]

One has to look at the concept of "protecting" neighbourhoods in the historical planning context of the 1970's. At that time, entire neighbourhoods such as North St. Jamestown and Quebec/Gothic in High Park were being razed for high-rise development, following the 1960's pattern of development in areas like Yonge/Eglinton and Yonge/St. Clair. The "reform" council of the early 70's, made up of members such as David Crombie, John Sewell and Karl Jaffary, were elected to do things differently and the new Central Area Plan was introduced by the planners with the intent of protecting these neighbourhoods under threat of wholesale urban renewal. All subsequent Official Plans since that time have built on these concepts, however the concept of "protection" morphed from preventing the whole-sale demolition of downtown low-rise neighbourhoods to minimizing impact on flanking streets by way of height limits, angular planes and setbacks. What we have now in the OP and Tall Building Guidelines is (for the most part) overkill, and we've seen these conflicts arise time and time again because of how the laudable intentions of the planners in the 1970's have become misused to prevent reasonable developments near or within the "Neighbourhoods"

Never heard this historical narrative before. Thx for sharing.

 

[UtakataNoAnnex]

I read the whole post. None of a 13, 15 or 21 storey building would “ruin the neighbourhood forever” lmao. I have no patience or respect for the notion that we must forever kowtow to rich people and their houses, entrenching their wealth and “protecting” them from the horrors of shadow, 1% reduced sky view, more people on the sidewalk, etc. I just don’t care and I think it’s inequitable the way the OP builds a policy fortress around Neighbourhoods. If you live a stone’s throw from Yonge St and multiple subway stations, parks and schools, retail and offices, in a $2, $3, $4, $5+-million house, you should have some responsibility and tolerance for growth along with the privilege of living there. A well-designed tall building does not “ruin” a neighbourhood and I will not stand for this drivel!!

To be clear, I didn't say I agreed with it. I would have just quoted the whole post while emphasizing that one point instead. It adds context to the debate and dissing, IMO.

 

[Rascacielo]

Today

 

[daniel_kryz]

I read the whole post. None of a 13, 15 or 21 storey building would “ruin the neighbourhood forever” lmao. I have no patience or respect for the notion that we must forever kowtow to rich people and their houses, entrenching their wealth and “protecting” them from the horrors of shadow, 1% reduced sky view, more people on the sidewalk, etc. I just don’t care and I think it’s inequitable the way the OP builds a policy fortress around Neighbourhoods. If you live a stone’s throw from Yonge St and multiple subway stations, parks and schools, retail and offices, in a $2, $3, $4, $5+-million house, you should have some responsibility and tolerance for growth along with the privilege of living there. A well-designed tall building does not “ruin” a neighbourhood and I will not stand for this drivel!!

First of all, calm down. If you want to ask me a question, ask it respectfully.
I agree that we have too many limitations in the Official Plan and the guidelines that disincentivize mid-rise development, and that we have too many Neighbourhoods (single-family homes) in Toronto. On the other hand, this doesn't mean that tall buildings are appropriate everywhere. It would be wrong to plop them right next to 2 to 3 storey homes without any transitions. The Scrivener Square site is appropriate because the adjacent sites are mid-rise, and then the adjacent sites to those adjacent sites are low-rise. I don't think it's good policy to allow tall buildings right next to tiny ones, and I believe some buffers should exist. Other than that, this street has historically been a mid-rise "main street". Preserving it would preserve the entire function and purpose of this stretch of Yonge Street. We wouldn't solve the housing crisis by allowing tall skyscrapers to built anywhere. We can solve it by allowing reasonable density in our Neighbourhoods. I have never understood how anyone could advocate for uncontrolled development with infinite heights without consideration for its impacts on the city... including visual, social, and transportation impacts. "Growth" does not mean that anything is appropriate so long as it brings more housing units. In fact, if we allow just anything to get built next to Neighbourhoods, then the NIMBYs will only get louder and more influential. We should be talking about increasing density to a reasonable level across the region, and do so with attention to context & detail.

 

[DavidCapizzano]

First of all, calm down. If you want to ask me a question, ask it respectfully.
I agree that we have too many limitations in the Official Plan and the guidelines that disincentivize mid-rise development, and that we have too many Neighbourhoods (single-family homes) in Toronto. On the other hand, this doesn't mean that tall buildings are appropriate everywhere. It would be wrong to plop them right next to 2 to 3 storey homes without any transitions. The Scrivener Square site is appropriate because the adjacent sites are mid-rise, and then the adjacent sites to those adjacent sites are low-rise. I don't think it's good policy to allow tall buildings right next to tiny ones, and I believe some buffers should exist. Other than that, this street has historically been a mid-rise "main street". Preserving it would preserve the entire function and purpose of this stretch of Yonge Street. We wouldn't solve the housing crisis by allowing tall skyscrapers to built anywhere. We can solve it by allowing reasonable density in our Neighbourhoods. I have never understood how anyone could advocate for uncontrolled development with infinite heights without consideration for its impacts on the city... including visual, social, and transportation impacts. "Growth" does not mean that anything is appropriate so long as it brings more housing units. In fact, if we allow just anything to get built next to Neighbourhoods, then the NIMBYs will only get louder and more influential. We should be talking about increasing density to a reasonable level across the region, and do so with attention to context & detail.

sorry but have you even looked at the plans? Is this not a transition down to the houses? It literally includes three townhomes facing the side street as a transition

 

[daniel_kryz]

sorry but have you even looked at the plans? Is this not a transition down to the houses? It literally includes three townhomes facing the side street as a transition

View attachment 333547

You misunderstood. I support this project, but I don't support tall buildings on this site... as proposed by @ookpik
The transition here is good, and the respect for context in the architectural expression makes this a home run!

 

[UtakataNoAnnex]

You misunderstood. I support this project, but I don't support tall buildings on this site... as proposed by @ookpik
The transition here is good, and the respect for context in the architectural expression makes this a home run!

It's not that tall at all. The James under construction across the road from this will be taller.

 

[ookpik]

On the other hand, this doesn't mean that tall buildings are appropriate everywhere. It would be wrong to plop them right next to 2 to 3 storey homes without any transitions.

Can you give any specific reasons why it would be "wrong" to put a tall building next to a 2 to 3 storey house, other than that it would piss off rich people?

I don't think it's good policy to allow tall buildings right next to tiny ones, and I believe some buffers should exist.

Again, why exactly?

Other than that, this street has historically been a mid-rise "main street".

Not the case at all. Historically this was a forest. Then a road was cut through and it was large estate lots and some 1 to 3 storey buildings for a long time. Yonge & Scrivener/Shaftesbury then became home to a major train station in the 1910s and grew in importance and centrality. Then the station closed in the 1930s and the area was less important until the subway opened in the 1950s and it picked up again. Then some mid-rise office and residential buildings came in the last 50 years. The only constant about this area, post wilderness, is that it has constantly changed as the population has grown. As it will continue to do.

We wouldn't solve the housing crisis by allowing tall skyscrapers to built anywhere.

Actually... this would definitely solve the housing crisis. Imagine 10 house owners in a great location near transit could get together and pool their land for minimal cost and allow a tall housing building to be built. This would pull the rug out from under the land values of those who currently own developable lands in the Centres and Mixed Use Areas, and drive down the cost of housing immediately. Abundance of supply also generally drives down cost.

We can solve it by allowing reasonable density in our Neighbourhoods.

This is, for sure, part of the solution.

I have never understood how anyone could advocate for uncontrolled development with infinite heights without consideration for its impacts on the city... including visual, social, and transportation impacts.

Who advocated for "uncontrolled development with infinite heights"? Me? Don't think so.
On the topic of "transportation impacts" -- well, here's the thing. People are moving to Toronto. That isn't going to stop. Should we not allow and even encourage housing next to subway stations? Like the very site we are discussing in this thread? Otherwise those people are going to buy cars and make it harder for everyone to move around town. So density near transit makes a lot of sense. This argument works against you.
What is a "visual" or "social" "impact" of a tall building? Sounds to me like NIMBY code words for "people not like us" and "more people". Serious question, what is a "visual" or "social" "impact" of a tall building? What does this mean?

In fact, if we allow just anything to get built next to Neighbourhoods, then the NIMBYs will only get louder and more influential.

Don't care. They are already too loud and have too much influence. Being scared of them getting louder and more annoying is not a principle around which to build policy. I just don't care what NIMBYs think.

Edited to add detail to the history summary.