The Preservationist
Active Member
I say heritage status for all establishments serving craft beer. Everything else can go to 80 stories. 
Toronto 49 Ontario Street | 152.4m | 44s | Dream | a—A
- Thread starter Edward Skira
- Start date
torontologist
Active Member
The solution is a form based code that encourages smaller commercial spaces and good urban design, and discourages soul-crushing podiums. Height isn't the enemy here. Nor are block assemblies, as long as they animate the pedestrian realm.
Northern Light
Superstar
Agreed on the smaller commercial spaces.
Not so sure about full-block assemblies which by their nature tend to shatter scale; and obstruct fine-grained movement between one street and the next.
Much of Toronto has larger blocks that would not be accepted in much of the world as it is.
That's one thing if you're accommodating a large factory.........but another if your putting in a foursome of condo-towers.
Last edited:
NY99
Active Member
This project embodies everything that is wrong with 21st-century development in Toronto. The architecture is pretty fine, but that’s totally irrelevant. This proposal is enormous, in all the wrong ways; “human-scaled” could not describe it less.
We’re seeing this play out again and again in new neighbourhoods. On the waterfront, at East Harbour, along the Golden Mile, at all those new suburban “hubs” (Scarborough town centre/Square One/Vaughan Metropolitan Centre/Markham Downtown/etc). None of these places will ever be nearly as vibrant as their proponents wish — in comparison to older neighbourhoods — due to the fact that their block sizes are enormous and their site plans pretty much forbid any kind of organic development from occurring.
Actually, the more that I think about it, the more I realize this isn’t a Toronto or even North America-specific thing. I travelled to Europe summer 2019, and it struck me how sterile their newly-built neighbourhoods were in comparison to their amazing historical centres. As nice as the modern architecture was, the buildings committed a lot of the same sins as we see here. Block-busting site designs, retail units that were way too wide, etc.
The problems with modern development are very widespread, and I don’t quite know how to fix them. Stop discouraging height, and start taxing properties based on their lot width maybe? Idk
We’re seeing this play out again and again in new neighbourhoods. On the waterfront, at East Harbour, along the Golden Mile, at all those new suburban “hubs” (Scarborough town centre/Square One/Vaughan Metropolitan Centre/Markham Downtown/etc). None of these places will ever be nearly as vibrant as their proponents wish — in comparison to older neighbourhoods — due to the fact that their block sizes are enormous and their site plans pretty much forbid any kind of organic development from occurring.
Actually, the more that I think about it, the more I realize this isn’t a Toronto or even North America-specific thing. I travelled to Europe summer 2019, and it struck me how sterile their newly-built neighbourhoods were in comparison to their amazing historical centres. As nice as the modern architecture was, the buildings committed a lot of the same sins as we see here. Block-busting site designs, retail units that were way too wide, etc.
The problems with modern development are very widespread, and I don’t quite know how to fix them. Stop discouraging height, and start taxing properties based on their lot width maybe? Idk
AlexBozikovic
Active Member
All of those are big sites (with concentrated ownership) being planned in a comprehensive way. That’s the kind of project Toronto City Hall now likes; its planning, urban design and development charges all incentivize big and “coherent” projects. Unfortunately most of those projects will be bad.
Now this kind of corporate sterility is coming to the oldest neighbourhood in the city. It doesn’t have to. It’s policy.
dusk
Active Member
Absolutely agree with your take here. A few things come to mind for me and i'll summarize below:
- Glass is sterile and used too liberally on the podium
- Condo lobbies are too big and waste space that could be used by retail
- Retail footprints are too big and that incentivizes larger retailers willing to take an upfront loss to sign the lease
- Most neighbourhoods do not allow retail within their side streets. Limiting retail to thoroughfares only drives up the price of retail through artificial supply constraints.
NY99
Active Member
Don't forget extremely large loading spaces which prevent any kind of animation from occurring on side streets or alleyways
Can someone enlighten me on how buildings got their stuff before the days of huge loading docks in every building? Did they just use the side of the road?
ADRM
Senior Member
This for sure, and I think part of the problem is Planning's favour for a very specific interpretation of the podium-and-point typology,
That's a good list, to which I'd add that the City has a very narrow and specific view of what the podium-and-point tower typology should look like, which not only imposes substantial design limitations, but I think also pervades without self critique, which is how we get just horrible massing outcomes like Time and Space.
NY99
Active Member
And the "best-case scenarios" for this type of modern development path (like The Well and the Christie Lands) just strike me as exceptions that prove the rule.
I wish a developer/municipality would pick a greenfield site somewhere - like the Port Lands or surrounding a rural GO station - and build up basic infrastructure like roads, bike lanes, sewage, etc. Then divide the land into thin lots that 1) feature no height or density caps 2) have no parking minimums 3) lack any type of usage-based zoning (beyond, like, forbidding heavy industry I guess) and 4) cannot be combined together
And just let people go ham
ADRM
Senior Member
You just basically described large swaths of Tokyo, which is in my view probably the ideal aspirational model of postwar-to-present urban development, and easily one of the most interesting cities in the world.
dusk
Active Member
Yup they used the road!
The podium and point is extremely frustrating. Perhaps another option is to limit the amount of land one developer can amass. We can create a limit on plot size. This would at the very least create taller, thinner towers with more diverse podiums (alongside neighbouring buildings)
dusk
Active Member
That's literally my dream. Not only is it more interesting but guess what... it goes a LONG way to solving our housing affordability crisis. This city's planning is absolutely absurd.
Northern Light
Superstar
Yes......but...........
The issue is also centred on the size of trucks.
A couple of decades back the industry went from a maximum trailer size of 48' to 53'.
That alone is a serious aggravation........
But trucks were once much less than 48'.
This is of note, because if you think about deliveries, think about the room taken by a cargo van; or a UPS truck; compare that to the footprint of a 53' trailer.
One is feasible to be parked road side (preferably legally, and that means not in a bike lane); the other might occupy most of a block. (and likely block driveways of other buildings too)
Truck size not only indicates need for a loading bay (or bays), its strongly indicative of the size of said bay.
Clearly just that last step up in truck size means a Bay needs to be 5ft deeper; but it also generally needs to be wider to allow for turning radii.
Getting rid of mid-sized or even large trucks likely is not on the table.
However, rolling back the maximum size in general to 48' and possibly capping it at a smaller size still for City-Core streets would allow both fewer but also smaller loading bays.
From: https://www.bluegiant.com/Files/Architects/Loading-Dock-System-Guide.aspx
Lots more at that site to give an indication of the impact of truck size on loading dock size.
Last edited:
ferusian
Active Member
Last edited by a moderator:
everydayhim
Active Member
the mid-block connection is welcome, tough it'll largely read like a dark service lane here. This thing just seems very banal in its current state..