Toronto 250 University | 155.76m | 47s | Northam | Arcadis

I can already say i'm not looking forward to this one. There are certain buildings that need to be preserved in this city with out being hacked and slashed by facacendectomy, and this is definitely one of them. At this rate, every historical building under heritage listing/designation in this city will have some kind of building plopped on top of it.
 
AlvinofDiaspar said:
Because we are too busy protecting the other 80% of Toronto from redevelopment.

AoD
Click to expand...

I'm not sure that's a fair comment, in high-demand areas, notably near downtown or midtown, there is no end of development activity.

There are more towers here under construction than anywhere else in North America.

Sure there is Nimbyism but can you really say it's at all effective?

There may be isolated pockets where the well heeled have stalled or pushed back a proposal, but that is the exception, not the rule.

I'm all for densification, broadly speaking. By and large, it IS happening.

Regardless, one can not say that heritage protection is interfering w/development when we've lost a great deal of the former, to the latter, and that continues.

There needs to be a stronger commitment to designate all the worthy buildings, proactively.

There is also a need to protect, in some measure, the few areas of the City that we all agree have an exceptional vibe, and that vibe is at least in part due to the architectural character and/or massing of said area.

It's not like such protections would leave a host of parking lots, non-descript buildings and the like ripe for the picking.
 
I disagree. Given how pathetic rapid transit coverage is across the city, there is no reason higher densities can’t be demanded 500m around rapid transit stations. It’s only fair.

The status quo is how we end up with a semi detached across the street from a subway station and a beautiful mid century building to be bastardized.
 
Filip said:
I disagree. Given how pathetic rapid transit coverage is across the city, there is no reason higher densities can’t be demanded 500m around rapid transit stations. It’s only fair.

The status quo is how we end up with a semi detached across the street from a subway station and a beautiful mid century building to be bastardized.
Click to expand...

I don't disagree with the premise that higher density should be demanded around rapid transit stations, but be careful what one wishes for - this stance basically further incentivize blocking rapid transit as a way to insulate against intensification/neighbourhood changes, which is also partly why we are having pathetic rapid transit coverage.

AoD
 
AlvinofDiaspar said:
I don't disagree with the premise that higher density should be demanded around rapid transit stations, but be careful what one wishes for - this stance basically further incentivize blocking rapid transit as a way to insulate against intensification/neighbourhood changes.

AoD
Click to expand...
I’m talking about existing lines. The fact that BD basically runs through a village strip with houses on the side is almost criminal.

Either that or introduce exorbitant taxes for single family homes next to subway stations. You won’t hear complaints from the majority of the citizens.
 
I don't think the fact the BD line runs through a village strip with houses is entirely a result of NIMBYism. I'm not a fan of TOD development that purposely encourages an island of very densities in a lowrise neighbourhood just because of a subway station but, that's for another discussion. What I see is that it's just not worthwhile to assemble properties along BD when there's so many other opportunities to build higher density development in Toronto. Some of the places we are allowing multiple 30, 40 storey tower developments just leaves me bewildered. Planning isn't directing where higher densities should be build at all. If we did, BD wouldn't just be starting to densify.

I like Vancouver. I appreciate the coverage of the Skytrain and the efficient planning around its stations. It all a little bland though.
 
Filip said:
I disagree. Given how pathetic rapid transit coverage is across the city, there is no reason higher densities can’t be demanded 500m around rapid transit stations. It’s only fair.

The status quo is how we end up with a semi detached across the street from a subway station and a beautiful mid century building to be bastardized.
Click to expand...

Are you disagreeing with me?

Because I can't see how. I'm not aware of heritage protection having stifled any development along Danforth, nor has nimby'ism been much of an issue as yet.

There have been very few applications for redevelopment and most have gone through quickly without much fuss.

The issue on Danforth is lot depth and fragmentation of ownership.

It's simply more cumbersome to assemble useful properties along much of the row.

Also the tunnels for the subway run immediately to the north of Danforth along much of the route, which could be an expensive complication.

Which is easy to overcome, if one has the demand and the price point.

Until recently there was little demand to do so east of Pape.

The issue here is mostly demand.
 
This is exactly the problem with city hall. They're busy protecting worthless buildings like the ones that were forced to be included in the Mirvish-Gehry proposal, meanwhile gorgeous buildings like this are allowed to be turned into shells of their former selves. We need to pick and choose actually worthy buildings that we can dedicate every resource to protecting and not waste time trying (and failing) to save every worthless building just because it is X years old.
 
I bet if a decent 5-7 story condo/apartment building was proposed on the Danforth west of Pape it would sell out in a flash! There is demand but no place to build. I live in the area and know many who would love downsize and stay but there is no option.
 
I hope they don't tear this building down and build something cheap! At least keep the facade and build a structure like 88 Scott building on top of it, making this development look clasic. We need to keep the University Ave look rich !
 
Automation Gallery said:
i like the height, but what about the shadowing issues on NPS?
Click to expand...

It's too far away fo that to be a problem, shadows will only impact NPS after 4 PM.

Here is a generic 54 storey tower, 175 metres tall, on the site, along with the other tall towers and proposals nearby:

W90pK58.png


0exaTYh.png


QQQypJc.png
 
Koops last rendering of the proposal looks great. That's what I'm talking about at University ave by having the classic look on top of this podium with a nice roof top. New York City and Chicago still enhance they're cities with new clasic style structures why not Toronto! It aways glass, glass, glass in this city !!
 
Northern Light said:
Are you disagreeing with me?

Because I can't see how. I'm not aware of heritage protection having stifled any development along Danforth, nor has nimby'ism been much of an issue as yet.

There have been very few applications for redevelopment and most have gone through quickly without much fuss.

The issue on Danforth is lot depth and fragmentation of ownership.

It's simply more cumbersome to assemble useful properties along much of the row.

Also the tunnels for the subway run immediately to the north of Danforth along much of the route, which could be an expensive complication.

Which is easy to overcome, if one has the demand and the price point.

Until recently there was little demand to do so east of Pape.

The issue here is mostly demand.
Click to expand...

You kinda touch all bases. There is definitely demand at a good price point. It still not economical for established developers given all the other options they have.
 
I meant about getting rid of that zoning that keeps SFH residential areas just that.

What was it, 80% of the city of Toronto is undevelopable basically?
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top