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

[maestro]

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

It's a fact of life but, that doesn't mean they can't be minimized through appropriate planning. 130 metres is unnecessarily tall.

This proposal's site is too small for anything but a point tower. There's still minimal separation from surrounding properties. It's not something to be commended here.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

It's a fact of life but, that doesn't mean they can't be minimized through appropriate planning. 130 metres is unnecessarily tall.

A relatively tall and slim tower is the proper way to minimize it. In any event, do we demand such minimization if say this is an apartment neigbhourhood? Probably not. Why do we have these oddly divergent expectations based on locale and not the overall impact on the number of individuals?

AoD

 

[Avenue]

With all density / anti-density discussion aside, I don't find anything appealing about this building aesthetically and in how it interacts with the built form on the rest of the street. I'm not against height, but this design is kind of 'meh' in this location.

 

[maestro]

A relatively tall and slim tower is the proper way to minimize it. In any event, do we demand such minimization if say this is an apartment neigbhourhood? Probably not. Why we do have these oddly divergent expectations based on locale and not overall impact on the number of individuals?

AoD

I edited my last post. Ill add, It's only tall and slim because the site dimensions dictate it. A bunch of tall slim towers with minimal setbacks from one another is no different than a slab.

The majority of community planning does consider shadowing in high rise neighbourhoods. Vancouver takes it too far. Toronto in places doesn't go far enough.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

I edited my last post. Ill add, It's only tall and slim because the site dimensions dictate it. A bunch of tall slim towers with minimal setbacks from one another is no different than a slab.

Sure, but a shorter tower on this site wouldn't have changed that. This is a design issue.

The majority of community planning does consider shadowing in high rise neighbourhoods. Vancouver takes it too far. Toronto in places doesn't go far enough.

In other words, we don't really care all that much (sic Entertainment District). Since we have established that, I am once again confused by the differential between how we treat citizens in low rise neighbourhoods to high rise ones.

AoD

 

[LMVDR]

Since we have established that, I am once again confused by the differential between how we treat citizens in low rise neighbourhoods to high rise ones.

AoD

Citizens are all treated the same. It's the only land that's treated differently. This is called zoning. The city does not zone people. It zones uses of land. People are free to move wherever they choose.

So no more high density on Prince Arthur just as no more high density on some side street in the Junction.

 

[interchange42]

If I have to pull punches in an open discussion for fear of offending the host then ban me now. Please. I won't waste any more of my time.

Citizens are all treated the same. It's the only land that's treated differently. This is called zoning. The city does not zone people. It zones uses of land. People are free to move wherever they choose.

So no more high density on Prince Arthur just as no more high density on some side street in the Junction.

You held out for 28 long minutes. Congrats!

42

 

[stjames2queenwest]

It does seem a bit odd that we care about shadowing on single family homes, but we do not care about shadowing on neighbouring apartment buildings and condos. Which affect A LOT more people.

 

[stjames2queenwest]

People who live in single family low rise neighbourhoods most likely have the option to move elsewhere. Families living in rental towers, or first time condo owners are at a loss when something goes up next door, shadowing, blocking views and causing noise disturbance for years. That is just a fact of life in this city that many have to deal with.

 

[Brother Jonathan]

People in this thread keep talking about the impact of this proposal on single family homes. But how many of the surrounding detached houses are single family? Some are, certainly, but many of the houses contain offices. Many contain apartments or rooming houses. And many are occupied by fraternities, which in my mind do more to set the "character" of the neighbourhood than any particular built form.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Citizens are all treated the same. It's the only land that's treated differently. This is called zoning. The city does not zone people. It zones uses of land. People are free to move wherever they choose.

So no more high density on Prince Arthur just as no more high density on some side street in the Junction.

Indeed, so I suppose people who can't take it in the Annex are free to move wherever they choose should this goes up.

People in this thread keep talking about the impact of this proposal on single family homes. But how many of the surrounding detached houses are single family? Some are, certainly, but many of the houses contain offices. Many contain apartments or rooming houses. And many are occupied by fraternities, which in my mind do more to set the "character" of the neighbourhood than any particular built form.

No doubt about that at all - the question then becomes - do we consider offices, rooming houses or fraternities uses sensitive to shadowing? In all honesty, we probably don't - it's just like how the discourse around apartment or condos dwellers rightly or wrongly get dismissed by "one doesn't have default access to views/sunlight".

AoD

 

[A Torontonian Now]

This thread has been moving too fast - there were a number of posts to which I was going to reply, just to find someone else beat me to it.

My comment generally is that some of the hysteria against building on this lot seems misplaced when considering the specific local context. No one (or far fewer members) would be advocating for this tower if it was proposed to go mid-block on any streets like Huron, Madison, Admiral, Lowther, etc. Prince Arthur, however, already has a compatible built form of relatively short high rises (calling them mid-rises is misleading).

In every direction, there is a significant buffer between this site and the low rise Victorian homes (I do not say SFH, because I personally have lived in three different apartments in the Annex located in converted homes). To the south are institutional uses (St. George Station, U of T, Yacht Club). To the east, between Bedford and Avenue, Prince Arthur is commercial. To the immediate north is a park, and much of the rest of that block of Lowther is also non-residential (offices, the Quakers' building, frat house). This is a location in the Annex whose development will not affect the character of the blocks in the Annex that most pristinely conserve the Victorian era.

 

[Brother Jonathan]

No doubt about that at all - the question then becomes - do we consider offices, rooming houses or fraternities uses sensitive to shadowing? In all honesty, we probably don't - it's just like how the discourse around apartment or condos dwellers rightly or wrongly get dismissed by "one doesn't have default access to views/sunlight".

I suspect driving out the frats and lawyers would actually improve the neighbourhood. (kidding)

To be more clear about my own personal views on this project: I have never supported the view that we need to preserve the particular built form character of a neighbourhood. I also have no particular problem with tall buildings or with density. So my views are, apparently, quite far outside what passes for mainstream planning considerations in this city.

The Annex is a nice neighbourhood with its current mix. So is the area around Eglinton West Station. However, both areas need to densify. That means gentle density, yes, but it probably also means towers. Look at what the area around St Clair West Station looks like these days. If Toronto keeps growing, that's the future for Eglinton West, Dupont, Spadina and St George.

So I'm fine with more density in this location. I think the building looks good, although I doubt it will get built as pictured.

I also think we need to find more creative ways of preserving mixed-use neighbourhoods than simply locking down a specific built form (detached houses or otherwise). Otherwise the Annex really will become like NY's Soho: too expensive for anyone not on rent control, with all the interesting businesses out in Brooklyn and the interesting people in Queens or (at least for a couple people I know) Montclair, NJ. I know some people like modern Soho, but every time I visit I feel like I'm in an open-air version of Yorkdale, with the same stores lining the streets. So it doesn't seem to me that regulating built form has proven to be a successful way of preserving a mixture of uses. Although I don't live there, so I'd be open to evidence to the contrary.

 

[Freegoing]

Low and mid rise areas need to be preserved in this city. Duplex north of Orchard View is a perfect example. Density creep would have killed that neighborhood but the residents fought hard and won. Keep the density on Yonge and along the areas or in apartment neighborhoods. Not low or mid rise neighborhoods.

I am very pro high density but this is not appropriate. 9 storeys on Davenport? No problem. Let's preserve the character of this great neighborhood for current and future generations.

Sounds like you are anti-development. Limiting density to Yonge or apartment neighbourhoods creates the need for 30, 40, 50 and more storeys. We will either get massive towers along small stretches of city, or midrise through large swaths. Coming from an affordability and livability standpoint, the latter makes more sense to me.

The Duplex group who protested the nearby proposal are terrible. Density creep is a wonderful thing because it means more people get to live close to transit and services, and makes better use of land that is, presently, underused and far too suburban for an urban centre.

 

[ProjectEnd]

Citizens are all treated the same. It's the only land that's treated differently. This is called zoning. The city does not zone people. It zones uses of land. People are free to move wherever they choose.

So no more high density on Prince Arthur just as no more high density on some side street in the Junction.

Funny you should maintain this line when nearly all of the recent research suggests that the widespread use of zoning throughout the United States and Canada was indeed done for explicitly racist reasons.

You wont, but check this out in case you're curious. It's excellent.

https://www.amazon.com/Color-Law-Forgotten-Government-Segregated/dp/1631492853

Harland Bartholomew for example, who fathered zoning in Vancouver, had this to say about zoning in St. Louis:

Can you guess which race Bartholomew was?