dt_toronto_geek
Superstar
What project on Jarvis? The 50-storey one across from Allan Gardens?
Toronto 365 Church Condos | 102.1m | 31s | Menkes | Wallman Architects
- Thread starter urbandreamer
- Start date
What project on Jarvis? The 50-storey one across from Allan Gardens?
intervention
New Member
Agreed.
Just because it's Downtown doesn't mean it needs to accommodate high density. I agree that something should be on this site - certainly the parking lot is by no means optimal in any way - but given its proximity to a lower density neighbourhood (which it cuts through) and the site specific OPA policies that require transition and consideration of character etc, it would have been more appropriate for something with less massing and more transition.
Now we're going to get a cluster of buildings at a ridiculous density when looked at as a whole - 365, 355 Church, the 50 storeys on Jarvis and if things keep going like this, the lot near the Barn will be under application very soon.
intervention
New Member
Yup!
balenciaga
Banned
I doubt the Church-Sherbourne area will remain a "lower density neighbourhood" for long as it is now. You have to look long term (30 years) when planning these buildings.
Once all the projects on Yonge are completed, the city will move eastwards to Church and Jarvis, as they are such prime real estate and can't afford to remain low rise forever. People want to live there by transit. On the west side, things are moving pretty fast, and because of the existence of UofT, there is not as much room to develop.
Admittedly Toronto is not Mahattan and will never be. But if the city has the chance to succeed, its core will become much denser, an indication people want to live in or near the center, not away from it. Let's not worry so much about the increasing "height" and "density", but rather focus on how new buildings are designed, how they meet the street and whether they add vibrancy to the local neighourhood. Not all highrises have to be cold lifeless towers like those on Bay st. Density should be welcome and more height is inevitable when prime land becomes scarces. Downtown from Bathurst to Parliament by default should be dense. That's what a large city means.
Are Church 365, 355 adding "ridiculous" density, considering Church street is less than 5 minutes walk from Yonge? We will have the answer if we look at comparable large cities in North America and the world. I would not call Church ridiculously dense if all the current buildings were 25 stories high.
Last edited:
dt_toronto_geek
Superstar
Live close to transit that is already operating well beyond capacity with about another 40 buildings yet to be built within walking distance. The downtown area is close to being maxed out, it can't support many more residents or office workers. If the transit crisis is not addressed very soon with a plan and a means of financing it the downtown area is no longer going to be a desirable place to live. Btw, I'm not against this project, just sayin'.
balenciaga
Banned
Can't be further from the truth. Our downtown is still quite sparse and low rise compared with a lot of other big cities.
I don't know why transit crisis is related to how many people live downtown. I mean, downtown dwellers are least likely to take a Yonge subway at 8:30am, mostly definitely don't need toshow up at Yonge/Bloor. If more people move to downtown from somewhere else in the city, transit issue will only get better, won't it? You are talking as if downtown condos are attracting buyers from outside Toronto who otherwise won't take transit.
Ramako
Moderator
The persistence of the belief that transit congestion is due to more people living downtown is baffling to me. As someone who takes the Yonge line from Finch to Queen and back every day, I can attest to the fact that the vast majority of transit riders are coming from and going to the suburbs. Having more people living downtown within walking or cycling distance of their office is the solution to the problem, not the cause. In fact, one of the reasons that I'm looking forward to moving downtown from North York next year is that I'll get to avoid having to take the subway every day.
SP!RE
°°°°°°
What's equally baffling to me is the assumption that everyone who lives downtown:
a) walks everywhere and never uses transit
b) works downtown/ goes to school downtown/ doesn't use transit to get to these places, whether it be subway or streetcars
and that
c) we can continue to cram thousands and thousands of more people downtown without needing to upgrade transit (and other types of) infrastructure.
It's a very elementary view of urban planning and issues of sustainability to suggest that more people living downtown doesn't affect transit/ contribute to transit congestion. Good urban planning is not as simple as "if everyone lived in a high density environment, we wouldn't have ________ problems." In Toronto, many many people live downtown and use transit, use transit to get to jobs outside of downtown, etc. etc.
Last edited:
balenciaga
Banned
What you said is largely true, however, do you agree with people who live downtown use transit less frequently than those who live in the suburbs who need to commute everyday?
As a downtown person, I use TTC occasionally, but only during weekends and sometimes week days after work when i need to meet friends. Most live downtown in order to be close to work. Not many live here and take a 45 subway ride to the suburbs to work. (they do exist, but much fewer than the other way).
I am not suggesting living downtown will solve our transit problem - but I am sure it will not make it worse, will it? Those who have moved to downtown would otherwise need to take TTC much more frequently. That's a fact. Not everyone living downtown has the luxury to walk to work, no one assumed that, but a much higher percentage can and do compared with those who live in the burbs, which either cram into the yonge subway every morning, or add more traffic to the DVP, neither is a good thing. This itself makes the subway less crowded, doesn't it?
About c, how many people are "Crammed" into downtown has nothing to do with the need to upgrade transit infrastructure. It is not like these people came from nowhere - they use to live in the burbs and use transit to start with. They don't add to the congestion at Yonge/Bloor during rush hours.
Last edited:
dt_toronto_geek
Superstar
I'm not saying that. How many other cities that have so many people living and working (commuting in and out of) in the downtown area only have one subway leading in and out? Drivers are experiencing the same frustration. When I take TTC to get from Yonge & Wellesley to Queen & Bathurst (and back) it's a friggen' nightmare.
That's not necessarily true. Plenty of people live downtown and work elsewhere. Driving or taking transit against the rush hour flow used to be a breeze, not so much anymore.
khris
Senior Member
Ya... rush hour is an every direction sort of thing now.
dt_toronto_geek
Superstar
Menkes appeals to the OMB and gets their building - http://www.xtra.ca/public/Toronto/Controversial_30storey_Church_Street_condo_gets_goahead-12718.aspx
fedplanner
Active Member
SP!RE
°°°°°°
Seriously, the OMB needs to disappear. They epitomize the weaknesses of capitalism, with its "development/growth/profit-before-anything-else" prioritizing.
Instead of putting the building through a process in which it could be improved and developed to suit the neighbourhood better, the OMB simply approves it (as they do 99% of projects that come before their counsel) AND in this case took the Section 37 benefits out of the picture. What a slap in the face.
Instead of putting the building through a process in which it could be improved and developed to suit the neighbourhood better, the OMB simply approves it (as they do 99% of projects that come before their counsel) AND in this case took the Section 37 benefits out of the picture. What a slap in the face.
Last edited:
innsertnamehere
Superstar
while I like how the OMB often approves buildings at more appropriate heights for their locations, (I.E., what was proposed here) I feel it could be much better if the developer appealed to it, then said it would approve the structure at the proposed density, but with trade-offs such as Section 37. Now the city will be getting a new skyscraper with no community benefits. I feel both the OMB and the City are to blame here though. The City straight up denied this project, which I don't think it should do. They should have told them to build no more than say, 25 floors, with a couple of larger units, and a largish section 37. they probably could have done that and the developer would have accepted it. Instead they basicly said screw you, you can't build anything more than 10 floors, and with ionic design with a huge section 37 fee. This is obviously unfair for the developer, as they would NEVER make money off of the property, so they went to the OMB. The OMB then said to build whatever you want. The City messed up by telling the developer to go screw themselves, and the OMB screwed up by letting the developer build whatever they wanted.
Last edited by a moderator: