Toronto 619 Yonge | 237.99m | 70s | YI Developments | Core Architects

dt_toronto_geek said:
Read what I wrote balenciaga, I suggested nothing of the sort about not wanting more people downtown and more in the 905. With what is going up now and proposed we're looking at well over 100,000 units, how are all these people going to move around? The moratorium comment on dt growth was made in jest - partly. We are growing far too rapidly IMO plus we are going to regret some big mistakes that are being made in the near future. Transit is also decades behind where it should be to carry current and growing volumes of people.
Click to expand...

1) these people will either walk or bike, or take transit when necessary. Before moving dt, they take transit too. The good thing is, most of them probably don't need to take transit during rush hours to get to office. As I emphasized many times, they take the subway even before moving dt. Where do you think these people come from and how they commute?

2) Sure, dt will get a lot more congested but I am all for that. Honestly compared with NYC, Asian and European cities, dt Toronto is still quite sparse. I don't worry about congestion in 10 years at all.

3) Your concern over infrastructure is legit. However, as backwards as Toronto is, it is unrealistic to expect the city to build more infrastructure dt before it becomes an issue. Maybe increasingly crowded 501 etc, if that happens will finally convince city planners that a Queen subway is need (I am not talking about a DRL transporting people twice a day, 5 days a week). I am talking about one that actually serves dt. It is so stupid that the city doesn't even considers a Queen subway but thinks something frivolous as extending the Sheppard subway is of higher priority.

Anyway I think it is a great thing that more and more people will move closer to downtown. This makes providing essential services so much easier and less expensive. The city should keep allowing highrise construction in downtown as well as all areas within 10 minutes walking distance to a subway station south of Eglinton ave. Currently we have too many flat suburbs making everything so difficult.
 
Last edited:
Downtown infrastructure is already an issue.

I think you overestimate the number of people who live downtown and don't use a transit. My friends and co-workers who live downtown still use transit on a regular basis to get to work etc.

Why the arbitrary decision to allow highrise construction within 10 minutes of a walking distance of a subway south of Eglington?
Why not north of Eglington? If you think we have too many flat suburbs why not starting building highrise developments there? Why can't there be a mixture of lowrise and highrise development in the downtown core?

We need more diversity in our development to allow for different types of people's needs. This is one of my problems with the current condo development - they are overwhelming 500 -800 square feet boxes suitable for 1 to 2 people. What do they do when they decide that size doesn't fit their needs? Where are they going to go?

I'm all for increased density but with out proper infrastructure and planning its a recipe for disaster, and we will not have a city where people want to live.
 
balenciaga said:
Here is a suggestion from me: if one hates high density and love low rise Victorian houses, move to the suburbs in North York, or Scarborough. Those charming neighbourhoods are everywhere.
Click to expand...
I agree with most of your posts, but this is the one thing I don't get. There are no charming Victorian houses in North York or Scarborough. North York and Scarborough's houses are mostly post-WWII and rather boring, not to mention lower density and much less walkable than lowrise neighbourhoods in much of Old Toronto. Even the oldest neighbourhoods of North York and Scarborough have homes that are mostly from the 20s (not Victorian), which are much more plain looking than many of the 19th century homes in the core. The nicest Victorian homes of Toronto are largely in the areas in and very close to downtown like Cabbagetown, the area between Church and Parliament, a few neighbourhoods between St Clair and Bloor (like The Annex and Rosedale), and Parkdale. Honestly, I'm not sure you know very much about architecture... the pretty old houses people are worried about are not from the 20s but from I think about 1860-1900.

These houses are typical of the 1920s, they have little ornamentation and not worth making much of a fuss about if someone wants to destroy something like that for a condo tower.
http://goo.gl/maps/XFX5k

These are some of the nicer Victorian homes of Toronto, probably from the late 1800s. Their location means that if the zoning allowed for it, they could easily be redeveloped for condos. Homes like these are quite rare outside the neighbourhoods I mentioned.
http://goo.gl/maps/UTYpG
These are similar, but a bit more middle class.
http://goo.gl/maps/tRQBK

Homes like these are also quite common, maybe even older (mid 1800s?), and not that special imo. They're pretty common in neighbourhoods near Queen Street.
http://goo.gl/maps/Kii8j

I also do think it should be possible to keep the more attractive Victorian homes while still growing the core significantly. If development starts out on the main streets, the side streets could see their Victorian homes turned into mixed use buildings with shops, as has happened in Yorkville, Kensington Market and a few other places here and there. These would probably be quite suitable to the more independent shops people seem to worry will be lost to condos. Even if highrise development runs out of room on the main streets, parking lots, etc, and begins spreading onto residential streets, you're not going to have wall to wall condos 50 stories high with no setbacks or podiums. Even Hong Kong has either setbacks/podiums, or more midrise buildings, so in Toronto, these Victorian homes could form the podiums of condos, or be placed in gaps between towers/setbacks, maybe involving moving the location of the house like with James Cooper Mansion.
 
marsh said:
Downtown infrastructure is already an issue.

I think you overestimate the number of people who live downtown and don't use a transit. My friends and co-workers who live downtown still use transit on a regular basis to get to work etc.

Why the arbitrary decision to allow highrise construction within 10 minutes of a walking distance of a subway south of Eglington?
Why not north of Eglington? If you think we have too many flat suburbs why not starting building highrise developments there? Why can't there be a mixture of lowrise and highrise development in the downtown core?

We need more diversity in our development to allow for different types of people's needs. This is one of my problems with the current condo development - they are overwhelming 500 -800 square feet boxes suitable for 1 to 2 people. What do they do when they decide that size doesn't fit their needs? Where are they going to go?

I'm all for increased density but with out proper infrastructure and planning its a recipe for disaster, and we will not have a city where people want to live.
Click to expand...
Sure, the small condos being built today aren't big enough for families, but there are plenty of single family homes outside downtown that are big enough. Families with children are an increasingly small portion of households now, I think there is more of a need for new units for small households. Larger condos could be built, but they will inevitably be more expensive.

I do think cheaper homes for families should be an option outside autocentric suburbs, but it's probably not realistic right downtown. IMO, we should zone neighbourhoods and relax regulatory barriers to allow lowrise/midrise apartment construction, which if wood frame and with lower land values could be quite a bit cheaper per sf than highrise. I would also be in favour of subdividing lots for townhouses, small lot homes, backyard cottages, etc in places that are relatively close to subways. Right now, I think there are few places that allow lowrise intensification like this in existing residential neighbourhoods, even if they're close to subways.
 
urbandreamer said:
Anyone get the feeling balenciaga is an infamous x-member that ranted about destroying "WASPy" Toronto's heritage? (May be wrong but do get similar vibes.

I'm turning my NimbyTect attention span to this site, here's an early look at the direction I'm headed.
Click to expand...

No, I am not that person you were referring to.
Not everyone who holds a different view from yours has an evil agenda...

Honestly, most members here participate in the discussion because they care about the city, albeit with often quite different approaches. Please stop acting superior and trying to muffle different voices.

For me specifically, I don't have an anti-heritage agenda. I am just tired of the low rise dominance in areas within and near the core. Low rise means the city has to sprawl bigger for the same number of people, which makes providing services and infrastructure increasingly difficult and costly. My ideal Toronto will be a downtown core which is primarily highrises (15-50 stories) and a midtown including east and west areas close to downtown mostly middle rises (above 4 stories). The suburbs can be low rise but people who choose to live there need to pay for their fair share of transit costs (pay more for taking a 60 minutes subway ride than a 6 minute one).

Now we see a massive supply of highrises in the core, a trend which should be celebrate, not to frown upon. Yes there is infrastructure problem but it is futile to wait. The city will realise the need to upgrade soon enough. A denser downtown means a more efficient and vibrant downtown, isn't it what we all wanted? With more residents, we shouldn't worry about the lack of amenities. Business will follow as soon as they smell the money.

As to heritage preservation, the issue is how to define what is heritage. Are all 2 story buildings built prior to 1950 automatically classified as "heritage"? Some seem to think so. We have to look at these on a case by case basis. In most cases, replacing a few 3 story houses occupied by 15 people with a 30 story tower which will serve as home for 200 in the core is totally worth it and makes sense, even when the tower itself is mediocre.

A case in point is Bathurst St north of Queen. Being literally a downtown street, it looks like a complete suburb, lined with nothing but two story homogeneous houses all the way to Bloor and beyond (and they are not as grand as many on Jarvis, which are indisputable heritage). I think it is a huge waste of space. Maybe you think they are heritage as well but I just don't see it that way. I would rather have all midrise apartment buildings ranging from 6 to 12 stories allowing a lot more people to be able to live to close to the core rather than this boring stretch of houses serving nobody but a couple hundred privileged who happen to inherit the house from their parents.
 
Ok apologies. While I agree with you to some extent even Manhattan has entire districts of historic lowrise buildings. You'd be surprised at the number of 1-2s buildings there--you must walk every single street (I always do) off the beaten path.

I think there's huge potential just off Yonge Street. Example: all those tower-in-park-apartment buildings could either be replaced by wall to wall midrises or have their empty "yards" filled with 4-8s buildings.
 
urbandreamer said:
I think there's huge potential just off Yonge Street. Example: all those tower-in-park-apartment buildings could either be replaced by wall to wall midrises or have their empty "yards" filled with 4-8s buildings.
Click to expand...

Why not propose this up in Davisville or Yonge north of Eglinton? The subway stations are close to downtown, those are very desirable places to live and there are plenty of tower-in-park buildings there that would yield many more midrises? Because it's those small green spaces around these buildings that increase quality of life for the residents that live there. These spaces are used for yard sales, resident events, dog walking & socializing with neighbours, garden spaces where residents get together and proudly dig, plant & maintain gardens (see the stunning display at City Park). Every spare lot or piece of real estate downtown does not and should not be dedicated to building highrises, places to breathe, play, run or lounge are needed too.
 
balenciaga said:
A case in point is Bathurst St north of Queen. Being literally a downtown street, it looks like a complete suburb, lined with nothing but two story homogeneous houses all the way to Bloor and beyond (and they are not as grand as many on Jarvis, which are indisputable heritage). I think it is a huge waste of space. Maybe you think they are heritage as well but I just don't see it that way. I would rather have all midrise apartment buildings ranging from 6 to 12 stories allowing a lot more people to be able to live to close to the core rather than this boring stretch of houses serving nobody but a couple hundred privileged who happen to inherit the house from their parents.
Click to expand...

Actually, the case there wouldn't be about "heritage" per se, but about context. And not just Bathurst itself, but what lies behind and around, so to speak. That is, as much as we might sneer at those "Beaches Licks condo" controversies, the concerns aren't *that* unfounded--all the more so when it involves a "quasi-residential" artery like Bathurst, rather than a primarily retail artery like Queen/Dundas/College.

Oh, and by the way, never mind Toronto. You sound like the kind of person who'd be pretty prosaic in your appreciation of existing built culture (notice I'm dodging around the loaded and contrived concept of "heritage") in virtually any "world metropolis". Such is Glaeserian dreary-dad utilitarianism...
 
balenciaga/?/?:

No, I am not that person you were referring to.
Click to expand...

Actually, you are.

As to the merit of this proposal - well, a mid-rise is certainly arguable for this site - but a 40s tower almost right to the edge of Yonge smack in the middle of the stretch? Not really.

AoD
 
Last edited:
It doesn't shock me one bit that balenciaga constantly gets scolded on this site. Everyone who speaks out against the status quo and supports any form of increased density is automatically labelled a "skyscraper geek" and is shunned here. Why preserve 1 storey bungalows on a major artery in the heart of the country's biggest city? There are literally 10s of thousands of these houses all over. Why not go to Etobicoke or Scarborough and save their examples of elitist, private transportation oriented residences? Toronto is doing a great deal of work improving its street level urbanity, and it seems there are plenty of people who want to see that reversed. Protecting townhouses on Yonge Street?? Supporting "apartment in the park" wastelands?? What's next, supporting plazas with giant parking lots? Sorry for being off topic, but I felt like I should add my 2 cents to this conversation.

AlvinofDiaspar said:
As to the merit of this proposal - well, a mid-rise is certainly arguable for this site - but a 40s tower almost right to the edge of Yonge smack in the middle of the stretch? Not really.

AoD
Click to expand...

I respectfully disagree. I think this is a perfect opportunity to begin the trend of increasing density on Yonge, especially from Queen to Bloor.
 
Last edited:
It doesn't shock me one bit that balenciaga constantly gets scolded on this site. Everyone who speaks out against the status quo and supports any form of increased density is automatically labelled a "skyscraper geek" and is shunned here.
Click to expand...

Just how does not supporting a tower in a sensitive, arguably worthy heritage strip equate to supporting status quo and against any form of increased density? A 40s tower isn't just "any" form of increased density, the last I checked. I think your automatic labelling need a bit of introspection.

Why preserve 1 storey bungalows on a major artery in the heart of the country's biggest city? There are literally 10s of thousands of these houses all over. Why not go to Etobicoke or Scarborough and save their examples of elitist, private transportation oriented residences? Toronto is doing a great deal of work improving its street level urbanity, and it seems there are plenty of people who want to see that reversed. Protecting townhouses on Yonge Street?? Supporting "apartment in the park" wastelands?? What's next, supporting plazas with giant parking lots? Sorry for being off topic, but I felt like I should add my 2 cents to this conversation.
Click to expand...

First of all, the stretch in question (which is of a fairly small area) is remarkable for heritage reasons. The same can't be said of suburban housing stock. So why aren't we rezoning all those dreary subdivisions with little to no streetlife (instead of treating them as sarcosanct low density housing areas) making up, what 50% of the built up area of the city instead? And besides, last time I checked, Yonge Street isn't exactly an area that requires a 40s tower to create "street level urbanity" - and ironically, the one place that had multiple recently completed 40s towers (i.e. Bay) isn't exactly oozing the same.

AoD
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top