ADRM
Senior Member
A 10-storey building in no way precludes the existence of trees or street furniture, and my own personal opinion is that Planning's slavishness to setbacks and stepbacks is foolhardy at best.
Toronto Angular Condos | 29.35m | 7s | Daffodil Developments | Square Vis Architects
- Thread starter PMT
- Start date
A 10-storey building in no way precludes the existence of trees or street furniture, and my own personal opinion is that Planning's slavishness to setbacks and stepbacks is foolhardy at best.
AlvinofDiaspar
Moderator
There is the most important context of all - this site is right by the downtown core on an Avenue with high transit accessibility in an urban region experiencing rapid growth. 10 stories is a very reasonable ask. People will need to get used to the notion that low rise housing can and should no longer dictate built form for sites they are proximate to (within reasonable limits).
AoD
Last edited:
innsertnamehere
Superstar
Don't go using straw man arguments here. The study claims to want to achieve these things of course, which is all well and good. The problem is the way it goes about it. they have encoded maximum heights into the OP, created restrictive angular planes, and overly generous setback requirements that neuter the development potential of any parcel. This parcel is supposed to have a 6-8m front yard setback, 5 storey height, and is not supposed to take out the 2 houses in the rear along Mortimer that it is proposing. The north corner of the site would end up with only 18m of buildable depth, without considering the 45 degree angular plane that starts on the third floor.
This study is a case of death by a million cuts. They put in all the asks from the community, and what results is building envelopes that are so small that you are better off just maintaining the existing legal non conforming uses and not investing in redevelopment.
And besides, we know what the local councillor thinks of development on this stretch. TPA conveniently buying out a midrise development plot right as it was about to get approved at the board.. If that isn't shady city dealings, I don't know what is.
Ex-Montreal Girl
Active Member
I am all for density. I am also for intelligence and a city built for people, not profits. City planners consider transit,traffic patterns, neighbourhoods, amenities, infrastructure, even trees which help the city breathe and mitigate climate change.
Consider the location. We have a corner -- i.e. at Mortimer -- which is, a very important (and low rise SFH detached ) east-west gateway and corridor. I bet thousands of cars use it to access the DVP every day via Pottery Road. Broadview is already a highway to and from O'Connor>Scarborough or O'Connor>Don Mills twice a day. The gridlock at that intersection could become unimaginable, although many new residents will no doubt avail themselves of the transit and bike lanes. (Oh and what fun it will be during construction!)
Yes, there's great transit. A bus stop currently accommodating three buses (Cosbourn, O'Connor, Flemingdon) stops right in front on Broadview. Won't that be fun too? (By the way, ever go to the Broadview station at rush hour? Not much different from Tokyo.)
The area could be designated (unofficially) a family area. Based on what I see of the plans, I see no units that could reasonably accommodate children, nor are there plans for green spaces in which they might play.
Admittedly these are small points on a forum. But city planners are city planners for a reason. They get the big picture. Developers are all about the take. I truly don't understand why they get to decide things.
I think "density" is really just becoming code for "I see an opportunity to make a pile of money here."
Consider the location. We have a corner -- i.e. at Mortimer -- which is, a very important (and low rise SFH detached ) east-west gateway and corridor. I bet thousands of cars use it to access the DVP every day via Pottery Road. Broadview is already a highway to and from O'Connor>Scarborough or O'Connor>Don Mills twice a day. The gridlock at that intersection could become unimaginable, although many new residents will no doubt avail themselves of the transit and bike lanes. (Oh and what fun it will be during construction!)
Yes, there's great transit. A bus stop currently accommodating three buses (Cosbourn, O'Connor, Flemingdon) stops right in front on Broadview. Won't that be fun too? (By the way, ever go to the Broadview station at rush hour? Not much different from Tokyo.)
The area could be designated (unofficially) a family area. Based on what I see of the plans, I see no units that could reasonably accommodate children, nor are there plans for green spaces in which they might play.
Admittedly these are small points on a forum. But city planners are city planners for a reason. They get the big picture. Developers are all about the take. I truly don't understand why they get to decide things.
I think "density" is really just becoming code for "I see an opportunity to make a pile of money here."
AlvinofDiaspar
Moderator
You are confounding private profit with planning principles. So if I substitute that private development with public or co-op housing, then what? Or even private rental housing - because there are surely enough non-contextual apartment buildings around that area.
And nope, Broadview isn't Tokyo.
AoD
And nope, Broadview isn't Tokyo.
AoD
Last edited:
ADRM
Senior Member
People have to live somewhere.
Development industry profits should be completely left out of the discussion because they're almost entirely irrelevant. Opposing development because you don't like the way the world works is a harmful and misguided position, and it sure is not going to fix capitalism.
ADRM
Senior Member
Also, an argument against density and, yes, as a result, against developers' ability to make a profit, is inherently an argument against the construction of more family-sized units.
AlvinofDiaspar
Moderator
In fact, it's a pretty good way to ensure the area will get gentrified in a stratospheric way where you either be able to outright buy the homes, rent existing houses for a princely sum or settle for what few rent controlled apartment buildings there are. It's funny how often progressives can be just like the Rosedale crowd.
AoD
Ex-Montreal Girl
Active Member
True. But those were built in a time when (1) East York was a suburb and everybody was driving and (2) highrises were constructed in so-called park like settings. Every single on is set back -- a lot -- with the only exception being the recently built Minto Skyy. Just because something was done in the past doesn't mean that it's a good idea in the present. (read the Bible!!!) I just feel that that corner is not the right corner for that building. Put it a little further north where that old car dealership was, with set backs and the like, and then maybe we'll have something to talk about.
I have been saying for years on this forum that we need more family-sized units. I am sure there have been many profits raked in during that time. How many family units built or planned? Waiting ...
I am definitely for subsidized and low-income type housing which, by definition, would mean a good chunk of family-sized units. However children need schools and places to play. All those EY houses were built in a white picket fence time when every child had to have a backyard. There are very few parks and playgrounds. You can't take your kids into the ravines just like that on a daily basis.
Again, old style thinking that doesn't necessarily cut it anymore.
Why bring capitalism into it? I own property. I money in the bank and in the market. I employ people. But rampant capitalism has not helped the planet.
I prefer to set my city in a 21st century context with 21st century planning principles. I think the Broadview study reflects many of those.
ETA: I have written many times on this forum that I grew up in apartments. Many a time I was told that you can't raise kids in apartments. So which is it?
Last edited:
AlvinofDiaspar
Moderator
You kept on rehashing the same point though. So if this project, all else being equal, is public housing or co-op, would you object to it on the basis of it "not being right" of form? That's a fairly simple question that can be answered with a Yes/No - there is no need for a treatise about "21st century planning principles", whatever that is.
AoD
someMidTowner
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Unfortunately for that argument, developers are forced to work with properties they own. But you knew that.
"people, not profits" is the first instance of capitalism being brought into this discussion.
Ex-Montreal Girl
Active Member
The opposite of capitalism isn't density. Poli Sci 101.
And it's laughable that I am being accused of being for gentrification -- not -- while being likened to some sort of socialist/commie.
Ex-Montreal Girl
Active Member
P.S. I have yet to hear a good argument for THAT building on THAT corner.
someMidTowner
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
This isn't a debate about politics. It's a debate about the project. The ridiculous suggestions that the proposal be "moved" and that a private development by a private developer be built not for profit are what I was commenting on.
ProjectEnd
Superstar
Looks great. Adds units. Meets many urban design goals.
Could be taller but 10 storeys is fine.