Toronto 64 Prince Arthur | 46.1m | 13s | Forgestone | RAW Design

The mistake of putting a high rise apartment building amongst single family homes and a few mid rise buildings. The neighbourhood is better suited for mid rise buildings done appropriately. You could probably add a couple storeys to this building without too much distrurbace but not much more.

This proposal is so out of place here it's almost a joke. If you permit anything above a mid rise here the whole street is in jeopardy of becoming walled by towers. I know some of you probably salivate at the thought but I believe it would be a travesty.

Your little Twitter post is amusing. You're suggesting all those Uno Prii mid rises are preferable to low rise housing. Few would imagine as much today. Certainly along Spadina and St. George but the others are poor planning errors of another era.

And look at 100 Spadina. What did they fill that parking lot with? Hint: mid rise.

While we're all piling on...

The fact that more people have been able to live in the area because of these buildings, not to mention their inherent architectural gravitas, means you're likely wrong here. You just don't have the votes, so to speak.

Also, the fact that you equate the delicate intensification of the Annex with the destruction wrought in places like St. Jamestown indicates to me that either you like painting with a broad brush, or you just don't understand how they're different.

You use a lot of words to say little of value. Weston has every right to his opinions as a local homeowner and taxpayer. His financial position is of little consequence.

No I wasn't looking for entitled. I use my words carefully. And yes a small building would work well here. Why don't you install a wall of mid rise buidlings from Avenue to Spadina on Prince Arthur? I'm sure that wouldn't have a negative affect either. (sarcasm if can't detect it)

The second statement is invalidated by the first.
 
Last edited:
You use a lot of words to say little of value. Weston has every right to his opinions as a local homeowner and taxpayer. His financial position is of little consequence. I don't agree with him about Davenport but he has every right to comment.

No I wasn't looking for entitled. Again, you're trying to ignite class warfare, and you failed.
I use my words carefully. And yes a small building would work well here. Why don't you install a wall of mid rise buidlings from Avenue to Spadina on Prince Arthur? I'm sure that wouldn't have a negative affect either. (sarcasm if can't detect it)

And Prii's towers are quite striking I agree. I just don't approve of their placement.

I would if I could. Problem is, Prince Arthur doesn't connect to Spadina. Besides, it already sort of is lined with mid rise buildings. Over the three blocks of Prince Arthur, there are 8 midrise to tall buildings (soon to be a 9th, I hope). The character of Prince Arthur is already far taller than 4 floors.

The site we are discussing here is neighbour to a 12 floor building to the west, a 19 storey building to the east, and two buildings of 12 storeys each to the south. 4 storeys strikes me as severely out of character in size - the true "appropriate" height is probably in the 12-20 storey range.
 
I'm totally lost with this conservation. Is this urbantoronto or skyscrapercity? It's the Annex! It's recognition among visitors and architectural history is more than deserving of some heritage protection from large scaled redevelopment and one off skyscrapers. There's plenty of room to built high rise and skyscrapers elsewhere. This proposal isn't at all comparable to any existing high rise in the Annex which are usually less than 40 metes in height.
 
I'm totally lost in this conservation. It's the Annex! It's recognition among visitors and architectural history is more than deserving of some heritage protection from large scaled redevelopment and one off skyscrapers. There's plenty of room to built high rise and skyscrapers elsewhere. This proposal isn't at all comparable to any existing high rise in the Annex which are usually less than 40 metes in height.

May I direct you to the post a few pages back featuring the neighbours immediately to the west and east of this site?

img_6174-jpg.118642


img_6176-jpg.118644
 
I think most are in agreement that 29 floors is a little too aggressive. The argument is more so in the fact that this site is appropriate for far more than 4 floors. The sweet spot is probably between 12 and 20.
 
I'm totally lost with this conservation. Is this urbantoronto or skyscrapercity? It's the Annex! It's recognition among visitors and architectural history is more than deserving of some heritage protection from large scaled redevelopment and one off skyscrapers. There's plenty of room to built high rise and skyscrapers elsewhere. This proposal isn't at all comparable to any existing high rise in the Annex which are usually less than 40 metes in height.

Way too logical for this crowd.
 
I'm totally lost with this conservation. Is this urbantoronto or skyscrapercity? It's the Annex! It's recognition among visitors and architectural history is more than deserving of some heritage protection from large scaled redevelopment and one off skyscrapers. There's plenty of room to built high rise and skyscrapers elsewhere. This proposal isn't at all comparable to any existing high rise in the Annex which are usually less than 40 metes in height.

Except no one has make a reasonable connection on how this proposal will wreck what is. I keep hearing this will wreck the neighbourhood - but how, exactly, given it's location.

AoD
 
I would if I could. Problem is, Prince Arthur doesn't connect to Spadina. Besides, it already sort of is lined with mid rise buildings. Over the three blocks of Prince Arthur, there are 8 midrise to tall buildings (soon to be a 9th, I hope). The character of Prince Arthur is already far taller than 4 floors.

The site we are discussing here is neighbour to a 12 floor building to the west, a 19 storey building to the east, and two buildings of 12 storeys each to the south. 4 storeys strikes me as severely out of character in size - the true "appropriate" height is probably in the 12-20 storey range.

Oh, I like this post -- I think we all actually agree: 4 storeys is out of character; it's much too short for the immediate area!

In fact, on this block, this is the only building less than 4 storeys tall.
 
The point is there are better sustainable options than a single family home or a skyscraping apartment building and the Annex happens to be home to many of those options.
 
Except no one has make a reasonable connection on how this proposal will wreck what is. I keep hearing this will wreck the neighbourhood - but how, exactly, given it's location.

AoD

It will cast long shadows and project an ominious presence over the neighbourhood but, no it won't wreck the neighbourhood without sisters and brothers. My comments were in response to the implied reasoning that the Annex should be redeveloped because the form of SFH is elitist and unsustainable. Nevermind that plenty of these homes are no longer staged for a single family.
 
It will cast long shadows and project an ominious presence over the neighbourhood but, no it won't wreck the neighbourhood without sisters and brother. My comments were in response to the implied reasoning that the Annex should be redeveloped because the form of SFH is elitist and unsustainable. Nevermind that plenty of these are no longer staged for a single family.

Long shadows are a fact of life at the periphery of a growing core, and I am not sure why certain areas should be free from this circumstance while others aren't - especially when one takes into account the number of individuals that will be affected. Besides, this proposal doesn't create shadow of permanence - and dare I say, probably create less impact in sum to the slabs elsewhere in the Annex.

AoD
 
I think most are in agreement that 29 floors is a little too aggressive. The argument is more so in the fact that this site is appropriate for far more than 4 floors. The sweet spot is probably between 12 and 20.

Thanks for the clarity. I'm in that camp (although 20 would be still on the high side given this proposal's taller than average floor heights.)
 

Back
Top