Toronto 656 Danforth Avenue | 160.73m | 49s | Del Boca Vista | Studio JCI

At this point I wouldn't be surprised if firms have an AI that generates these cookie-cutter designs that could be anywhere.

I understand the need for intensification, but this is a bit much. There are some established landmarks and a character to the area - why can't that guide design and development along this corridor?

Height aside, which is a reach, I take issue w/the design on the grounds of blandness as well.............

What surprises me, is that the design comes from Studio JCI which has been having a moment w/UT'ers for the last few months, generating well above-average midrise designs.

Here, it feels like they lost the thread.
 
Del Boca Vista are the long term owners here. The proposal certainly is real in that it likely cost them close to half a million dollars all in, but whether they choose to build it or flip it is not known to me. I would assume the latter, given they have no experience in this field at all.
 
I'd be ok with an 8 storey limit if they turned everything within 75m of Pape or Danforth into 8 storeys as-of-right, including along the sidestreets lined with SFH.
It's funny; this is the alternative I suggested to a friend that lives in the area, who blew a gasket over this proposal and is organizing with his neighbours to oppose it. I asked that, given the Danforth was limited to 10 storeys max, would he be ok with a 6-10 storey midrise across the street of his house, or potentially next door a couple blocks north of Danforth? "No way, that would ruin the neighbourhood!" Okay buddy, well you can't have it both ways. It's either gentle density, or tall and sprawl, or we become a neo-feudal society of landowners with a permanently renting underclass.

This is somebody who is a card-carrying NDP voter that claims to love immigrants and refugees. Where does he think they're going to live? The cognitive dissonance is astounding.
 
It's funny; this is the alternative I suggested to a friend that lives in the area, who blew a gasket over this proposal and is organizing with his neighbours to oppose it. I asked that, given the Danforth was limited to 10 storeys max, would he be ok with a 6-10 storey midrise across the street of his house, or potentially next door a couple blocks north of Danforth? "No way, that would ruin the neighbourhood!" Okay buddy, well you can't have it both ways. It's either gentle density, or tall and sprawl, or we become a neo-feudal society of landowners with a permanently renting underclass.

This is somebody who is a card-carrying NDP voter that claims to love immigrants and refugees. Where does he think they're going to live? The cognitive dissonance is astounding.
The arrogance and willful blindness to the issue by some of my neighbours is crazy. I own and live in a semi-detached close by and completely agree that the low density of the area next to a subway is unsustainable but yet we fight to protect it at all cost. This is such a uniquely Toronto problem it's almost comical the Councillor and Planning staff give us cover.

I attended the Danforth Avenue Planning Study open houses and participated in the charettes. It was an impossible plan because everyone stressed the need for housing, affordable housing, and density to ensure existing businesses thrive and new businesses emrege but we also wanted to also preserve the low-scale nature of the street to ensure access to light, sun and sky views. The city planner in the CBC article said it perfectly,

"The study contemplates more of a mid-rise type of building ... something up to eight storeys that is careful to maintain good sun conditions," said Carly Bowman, the city's manager of community planning for the area.

When we plan for sunlight more than housing we ensured the plan would fail.
 
Many/most progressives are like this.
Which is it then, many or most? And your sample size was...?

Off-topically, I'll posit an alternative: Most folks likely show a degree dissonance about something that's really isn't their field of expertise regardless of their views, opinions and beliefs. And I suspect many are willfully so because they don't really like to be proven wrong...or that they don't like a group of particular people. And so on. In that way you can say this is human condition that is not unique to anyone particular. However, to assert they're unique to progressives without evidence...I'll then wager that you likely have an issue with progressives, not that there's an issue with being progressive. Just saying.

(I won't mention that there's also quite few NDP'ers that are not that progressive...but that will likely complicated things too much here, lol.)
 
NIMBYISM/aversion to change spans the political spectrum, it's one of the few issues that unites certain folks on the right and the left. There's pro-housing people on both sides too. That's why the big tent approach of More Neighbours Toronto is particularly brilliant; they've embraced both private and public sector solutions. Warms my heart to see people from diverse backgrounds come together to bring about change for the good of our society 🥲
 
I don't even care if we get 30+ at the intersections. I'd be fine with a consistent 8, maybe 10-12 at the major nodes, but with provisions for useful retail units, 2+ bedrooms in at least 25% of the units, articulated facades, space for patios, and so on. It's not like it's rocket science to figure out what a functional street needs
 
I agree there's no reason to go high-rise with these, we could have enough density with the right volume of buildings and not have an outcropping of towers dotting the skyline from afar.
Hi Harriot,

In my opinion, it is better to have an outcropping of towers beside 2 subway lines than an outcropping of subdivisions in the green belt. Homes are going to be created one way or another. It's up to us as residents to put our money where our mouth is and say if we want to stop greenfield development, if we truly care about climate change, then we must accept infill within city boundaries where it makes sense.

It's nice to say we could have enough density with mid-rise but the Danforth has had 60 years to be rebuilt to mid-rise density and it hasn't yet - I think there is an economic reason for that.
 

Back
Top