Toronto

316 Bloor West | 98m | 29s | State Building Group | Kirkor Architects

pw20

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Oct 16, 2007
Messages
837
Reaction score
113
at Spadina I can jump on the 1 or 2 line and a streetcar line... If pape ever gets a DRL I will agree 42 stories will make sense... All of manhatten is not skyscraper but almost anything new in Manhatten is skyscraper. Anyways in my mind it isnt that its on a subway line which makes it 42 floor worthy its because its on 2 subway lines.

As for the rest of the danforth and bloor I dont understand why there isnt more midrise versus 2 and three floor buildings.. Hopefully the new building codes encourage more development in this area.
Vehemently disagree that most new buildings in Manhattan are skyscrapers. Walk around the West Village and Chelsea and the majority of new buildings are thoughtful infill that are under 20 stories.

Toronto is so f'ing manic when it comes to construction, the only type of density we know how to do is 40 story buildings.
 

arvelomcquaig

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jan 16, 2010
Messages
467
Reaction score
45
Location
The Annex
Might as well propose a 42 storey tower at Pape and Danforth and some of you will think that's appropriate too, just because there's a subway station.
Yes, I do, in fact. Why not? If it's because it would look out of place, I don't think that's a good enough reason.
 

innsertnamehere

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
Mar 8, 2010
Messages
12,996
Reaction score
6,878
Because at Pape it would be 350% taller than anything around it. You have to take the context into account, especially in well established neighbourhoods.

42 floors at this location is closer to 200% higher than anything around it, which is still a little too much.
 

sixrings

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Aug 19, 2009
Messages
3,986
Reaction score
1,096
Because at Pape it would be 350% taller than anything around it. You have to take the context into account, especially in well established neighbourhoods.

42 floors at this location is closer to 200% higher than anything around it, which is still a little too much.
But look at how the context outside st clair and bathurst has changed in the last 8 years. Or even Yonge and bloor. Or before Minto got to Yonge and eglinton. Contexts change. I'm not suggesting one random 42 floor building. I'm suggesting that some of the other land is redeveloped as well. How tall are the buildings at king and spadina. It just baffles me that the buildings on a streetcar line are bigger than on a subway line.
 

Uptowner

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Mar 6, 2014
Messages
114
Reaction score
18
Are you guys crazy? This conversion completely underscores how Toronto confuses height with density. Dupont needs to be redeveloped, but 40 story buildings? That's not how you create a dense urban core...

Don't confuse the "manhattanization" of Toronto with glass walled 40-story condo buildings - the majority of Manhattan doesn't have that built form either. We should rather be concentrating on building 15-20 story midrises that are appropriate to the neighbourhoods they are apart of not turning every node into a forest of skyscrapers.

Urbanity is not necessarily a skyscraper.
I realize you were responding to the thread in general but so it is clear I am not advocating 40 storey building at Dupont right now.

As for Spadina and Bloor I am picturing something along the lines of Y&E. For those who can remember back 20 years imagine how people would have reacted to current projections/plans for the area. They would have cried blue murder. Now, who would say we shouldn't be getting those tall buildings there? I suspect very few in the area will feel that way in a couple of years. Judging by house prices it certainly has not been seen as negative.

The inertia of current baselines is a very powerful force and enticing argument but as has been pointed out this is on two subway lines. I am quite confident what I envision would also be widely embraced. As a starting point about 10 000 new people in the area would seem be a good outcome. None of the foregoing should be seen as advocating restrictive policies if there are others more ambitious than I am.
 

pw20

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Oct 16, 2007
Messages
837
Reaction score
113
SixRings - The Hudson, a condo at the corner of King and Spadina is 20 stories. It fits in great, is taller than the old buildings, but doesn't overwhelm the entire space.

The Well, similarly at King and Spadina will probably be around the same height, with the office tower being the tallest at thirty something feet. Freed-ville or what-not has actually been developed (in my opinion) extremely well. To your point Uptowner, the "context" of King and Spadina has changed but we've magically been able to create a great neighbourhood that works. That feels human scaled.

To be totally honest - Yonge and Bloor is a complete failure as a neighbourhood in my opinion. Charles Street, has become nothing more than a conduit for poorly built, meet the street poorly 40 and 50 story condo towers. That isn't how you build an urban city. Contexts do change, but we should be making sure that contexts are changing for the better.

Creating density around subway stations is a good thing, however, creating density around subway stations that support existing neighbourhoods and enhance them (B. Streets Condo is a great example) is an inherently different thing.
 

Canadian Chocho

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jan 13, 2013
Messages
344
Reaction score
247
Creating density around subway stations is a good thing, however, creating density around subway stations that support existing neighbourhoods and enhance them (B. Streets Condo is a great example) is an inherently different thing.
I agree, and I don't agree that Pape and Danforth is appropriate for something quite as tall as 42 stories.

I do however think that Spadina and Bloor can take more density and height given its context. This is a corner where we have 2 major subway lines and a major streetcar line. Unlike Pape and Danforth this area already boast several high rise apartment buildings. I would like to let some things remain intact like Madison Avenue north of Paul Martel Park and really most of the surroundings of the Annex. I actually think height here is a good way of preserving the majority of the Annex while adding an appropriate number of new residential units given the existing transit infrastructure. Looking at the floor plate, we aren't really talking about an overly massive building, simply a tall building. The Walmer apartment building with the Shoppers for example takes up way more area.

Pape and Danforth on the other hand only has one subway stop, no surrounding high-rise buildings, and not many (if at all?) heritage/unique structures to work around. Given those conditions I think a plurality of B. Streets-like buildings would be appropriate.
 

maestro

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
6,867
Reaction score
1,712
at Spadina I can jump on the 1 or 2 line and a streetcar line... If pape ever gets a DRL I will agree 42 stories will make sense... All of manhatten is not skyscraper but almost anything new in Manhatten is skyscraper. Anyways in my mind it isnt that its on a subway line which makes it 42 floor worthy its because its on 2 subway lines.

As for the rest of the danforth and bloor I dont understand why there isnt more midrise versus 2 and three floor buildings.. Hopefully the new building codes encourage more development in this area.
Huh? Most buildings being built in Manhattan are not skyscrapers.
 

Uptowner

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Mar 6, 2014
Messages
114
Reaction score
18
...To your point Uptowner, the "context" of King and Spadina has changed but we've magically been able to create a great neighbourhood that works. That feels human scaled.

To be totally honest - Yonge and Bloor is a complete failure as a neighbourhood in my opinion. Charles Street, has become nothing more than a conduit for poorly built, meet the street poorly 40 and 50 story condo towers. That isn't how you build an urban city. Contexts do change, but we should be making sure that contexts are changing for the better.

Creating density around subway stations is a good thing, however, creating density around subway stations that support existing neighbourhoods and enhance them (B. Streets Condo is a great example) is an inherently different thing.
To be clear I readily accept your point that it would be possible to put in buildings of 50 and 65 storeys in the area and make a complete pig's breakfast of it. I also think it could be done quite well even considering the current environment. If it is true that the City doesn't have the planning power to ensure that happens then I agree a bad outcome would be a very real potential danger. A 30 storey building that meets the street badly wouldn't be that much better, though.

I agree about King and Spadina and I wish this area had that kind of density. To get it, though, it will need a slightly different model with a few major "anchor" properties, the likes of which I suggested, to get anywhere close.

Further, I agree to an extent about Charles Street. For me it would have been better if all of the new buildings were made to front the street and not be allowed setbacks. I still don't think that that, in principle, undermines the position that advocates for taller buildings, but it does point to the need for better planning, in my opinion.

Concerns about Y&B could mostly be addressed in the same way. Your point is legitimate but given how much change is coming to the area it is probably fair to say that it is an open question how it all turns out.
 

P23

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jul 7, 2013
Messages
740
Reaction score
265
Might as well propose a 42 storey tower at Pape and Danforth and some of you will think that's appropriate too, just because there's a subway station.
It's an interchange station (plus one of the busiest streetcar terminals), is very close to the core, is just down the street from numerous cultural and educational institutions and to the West is one of the most vibrant strips of restaurants in the city. There's more to it than that.
 

interchange42

Administrator
Staff member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
22,055
Reaction score
16,353
Location
by the Humber
According to RealNet, this site was purchased back in April 2012 by Forest Hill Homes (316 Bloor West Toronto Developments Ltd) for $12.5M.....0.264 AC. Developer looking to build one high-density residential building consisting of approx. 120,000 SF.
At 42 storeys, that would make it approximately 2860 square feet per floor. That's about 2/5ths the size of the average point tower floor plate, and maybe 4 or 5 suites per floor, 6 if they are microsuites. It's a small lot, so it's not a surprise that something skinny is being proposed here.

42
It turns out that there are 535 units proposed for this building. The 120,000 square foot figure must be wrong then, as that would make the average size of a unit only 224 square feet… unless this is planned as a student dorm, which given its proximity for the U of T would make a lot of sense. Still, I think at least one of the numbers are wrong.

42
 

ProjectEnd

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
May 28, 2007
Messages
8,532
Reaction score
8,628
I'll go on record saying that while I have no issues with the height, given that it's Madison, it'll more than likely be a Kirkor.
 

Top