Toronto 2 Queen West | 34.44m | 7s | Cadillac Fairview | Zeidler

Indeed - thank heavens it wasn't a G+C. I wonder how much of the section of the heritage building covered with panels can be restored to its' original condition.

That, and a street level TTC entrance would be nice.

AoD
 
Sounds like a rebuild, not a restoration. If that's the case I'd hope to see it set back a little further as well, to allow some more sidewalk space. Even an extra couple feet can make a huge difference
 
whatever:

I'd be braver and turn Yonge into a two lane street with extensive paving/landscaping treatment. Not happening under the current admin, of course.

AoD
 
To clarify my comments, I do not believe in height and density limits at a site like 2 Queen E or Yonge and Eglinton. The more density at these locations, the better. I have major issues when developments are reduced in height and density on the basis on "good" planning. There is really no difference between a 65-storey building and a 60-storey building but its something Toronto planning puts a lot of emphasis on. I wish the focus was on site design instead. I understand my opinion on the process represents a very small minority.
 
AlvinofDiaspar said:
whatever:

I'd be braver and turn Yonge into a two lane street with extensive paving/landscaping treatment. Not happening under the current admin, of course.

AoD
Click to expand...

I certainly support this. I would go as far as making Yonge a no-car (except delivery trucks) street between Bloor and Front, and make the pedestrian friendly pavement.
We have Jarvis on the east and University/Bay on the west which serve as semi-highway already. Why does anyone ever have to drive on downtown Yonge?

Plus driving on Yonge is never pleasant. You have the scramble intersection at Dundas and you can't make a left turn or even a right turn on most intersections.
 
Last edited:
AoD, there is a street level entrance for the TTC already, on the south side of the building (although hardly sexy).
 
Just in regards to the density figures ...

You need to be really careful what you are comparing.

As a simple example, Boston ... Boston proper is 4X smaller than Toronto (area wise) as it never went through amalgamation, yet the density is only slightly higher than all of Toronto ...

Also there are many different density figures that take into account things like green space / water.

Toronto as an entire city is actually fairly dense as far as cities go in North America.

Toronto's outer core, (i.e. right around downtown but not downtown it self) not so much ... this is because many cities, take Montreal, have short 3 / 4 story buildings surrounding the core, as opposed to TOronto's Victorian era houses.
 
So this building will be rental and not condos? As much as I want it to go ahead at this height, I'm positive the city will come back with shadowing rubbish. Oh, and there's always the need to have a tapering skyline since organically formed skylines are cancerous and (apparently) less pleasant to view from Etobicoke.
 
DtTO said:
So this building will be rental and not condos? As much as I want it to go ahead at this height, I'm positive the city will come back with shadowing rubbish. Oh, and there's always the need to have a tapering skyline since organically formed skylines are cancerous and (apparently) less pleasant to view from Etobicoke.
Click to expand...

Okay, I'm "replying with quote", to immortalize your predictions, DtTO. This development will materialize totally contrary to your dire and jaundiced expectations.
 
taal, got your point, but there is no such thing as X is 4 times smaller than B. I don't know why people keep saying things like that. When A is 25% the size of B, we say A is 75% smaller than B, not 4 times smaller, which would result in A being a negative size.

You are right about Toronto's outer core full of low rises houses. It is these houses that make Toronto a lot less dense in general.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top