Toronto Bloor & Dufferin | 122.35m | 37s | Hazelview | Turner Fleischer

[NeilV]

It would stick out like a massive cyst would on one's finger.

Take a casual stroll through one of those neighborhoods and once you're done try come back and tell me that 40 stories would be appropriate for any of those neighborhoods.

I actually live around Old Mill/Royal York, so I walk through those neighborhoods every day, and yes, I'm telling you I think 40 stories would be just fine. Mind you, we're only talking about near the subway line where the infrastructure exists to support it.

"Out of context" is not a valid reason to me. Have you ever seen a picture of the TD centre when it first opened in 1967?

Nothing could be more "out of context" than that. And yet the city eventually grew around it to create a grand and beautiful neighborhood that serves the city well today. It may be very different from what it was pre-1967, but that's not a bad thing.

Don't forget that originally this whole area was nothing but forest. Then the first farm was built, the first house, the first multi-storey building, etc - all of those would have been "out of context" at the time, but that does not mean that they ruined the neighborhood. The reality is that cities grow and cities change, and your so-called "context" needs to malleable to accomodate that.

What makes this area so sacred that it must not be changed from its current state at this exact point in time? This is simply irrational and unjustifiable NIMBYism at its worst.

 

[Johnny Au]

I actually live around Old Mill/Royal York, so I walk through those neighborhoods every day, and yes, I'm telling you I think 40 stories would be just fine. Mind you, we're only talking about near the subway line where the infrastructure exists to support it.

"Out of context" is not a valid reason to me. Have you ever seen a picture of the TD centre when it first opened in 1967?

Nothing could be more "out of context" than that. And yet the city eventually grew around it to create a grand and beautiful neighborhood that serves the city well today. It may be very different from what it was pre-1967, but that's not a bad thing.

Don't forget that originally this whole area was nothing but forest. Then the first farm was built, the first house, the first multi-storey building, etc - all of those would have been "out of context" at the time, but that does not mean that they ruined the neighborhood. The reality is that cities grow and cities change, and your so-called "context" needs to malleable to accomodate that.

What makes this area so sacred that it must not be changed from its current state at this exact point in time? This is simply irrational and unjustifiable NIMBYism at its worst.

Look at Manhattan. Now, it's filled with skyscrapers and much of the island is flattened out terrain-wise. A few centuries ago, it was just a small hilly rocky island inhabited by the Lenape.

 

[cd concept]

Major changes are going to happen in the downtown area and there's nothing we can do about it.

 

[Lenser]

There's lots we can do about it. Pretending that it's simply a force of nature, that nothing can be negotiated, is very silly indeed.

 

[NeilV]

There's lots we can do about it. Pretending that it's simply a force of nature, that nothing can be negotiated, is very silly indeed.

Certainly there is something you can do about it. NIMBYs do have a voice in this city. The point is not whether you can do something, but whether you should. My argument is that at Bloor & Dufferin, you shouldn't.

 

[WislaHD]

I don't know if we can afford to not build super dense here.

Where are people moving into this city going to live?

The argument that this shouldn't be super dense, needs to be moderated with a push to allow low-rise density in the stable neighbourhoods here.

 

[Lenser]

Extensive mid-rise, especially along vital arterials and avenues, is largely the missing middle in this equation. A lot more of it would mitigate the need for tall, singular towers dominating the landscape in existing low-rise neighbourhoods.

 

[Dan416]

I don't get it. People complain that the Bloor-Danforth subway didn't bring development, and then when a developer wants to bring development to the subway, people complain??

No wonder the city of Toronto to this day is full of low-rise two-storey buildings. I think Montreal has a better stock of "missing middle" buildings. Unfortunately, they seem impossible to build in Toronto due to bureaucratic red tape. Until (if ever) that is solved, I say build up along the subway lines. The more density along the subway (throughout the whole line, including Jane, Old Mill, etc.) the better.

 

[maestro]

I don't think this proposal represents overdevelopment of this node. The idea that going tall here is equivalent to going tall everywhere there is a subway stop isn't taking into account the context.

There are already two apartment towers in the immediate vicinity of the corner, and several others nearby.

We are talking about a location that is not far from downtown, and already feels very urban. It is 4.1 km away from Yonge and Bloor, according to Google Maps, slightly closer than Bloor is to Yonge & Eglinton (4.3 km), where there are plenty of towers, existing and under construction.

In addition to the subway, this location is well served for retail, both smaller-scale along Bloor and by proximity to Dufferin Mall, by proximity to a large park (Dufferin Grove), other transit (Dufferin bus) and not far from where the Harbord and Bloor bike lanes begin (although an extension of the latter would certainly be welcome).

In a more distant timeframe, Dufferin Mall may also see redevelopment. This also suggests that the location could become a more substantial node of taller buildings.

I think the context is right for towers at Dufferin, and it is not equivalent to 40 storey towers at Runneymede, Jane or Royal York, as has been suggested. Old Mill, which already has some towers and other apartments, may actually be another location that, in my opinion, could handle some height and certainly would benefit from additional density.

The two apartment towers are 15 storeys. That's grounds to build 15 to 20 storeys and not 50.

 

[maestro]

I actually live around Old Mill/Royal York, so I walk through those neighborhoods every day, and yes, I'm telling you I think 40 stories would be just fine. Mind you, we're only talking about near the subway line where the infrastructure exists to support it.

"Out of context" is not a valid reason to me. Have you ever seen a picture of the TD centre when it first opened in 1967?

Nothing could be more "out of context" than that. And yet the city eventually grew around it to create a grand and beautiful neighborhood that serves the city well today. It may be very different from what it was pre-1967, but that's not a bad thing.

Don't forget that originally this whole area was nothing but forest. Then the first farm was built, the first house, the first multi-storey building, etc - all of those would have been "out of context" at the time, but that does not mean that they ruined the neighborhood. The reality is that cities grow and cities change, and your so-called "context" needs to malleable to accomodate that.

What makes this area so sacred that it must not be changed from its current state at this exact point in time? This is simply irrational and unjustifiable NIMBYism at its worst.

The TD Towers were the first towers to go up in a planned, modern CBD. They only looked out of context until more of the planned development was built. They were not out of context with planning policy. As much as I like our CBD, the city did lose a lot in its development. It did ruin a neighbourhood that would greatly appreciated today.

 

[Towered]

Extensive mid-rise, especially along vital arterials and avenues, is largely the missing middle in this equation. A lot more of it would mitigate the need for tall, singular towers dominating the landscape in existing low-rise neighbourhoods.

So how can this be achieved? Apparently such things cannot be accomplished here because the way things work here are too complex, or so I've been told by insiders.

 

[maestro]

I am baffled by the suggestion that tall towers shouldn't be built next to mass transit. That flies in the face of everything I've heard of regarding city building principles...

Because you view towers as how many metres tall instead of the context of their built environment. 20 storeys is a tall tower at Dufferin and Bloor. 20 storeys is a medium rise in the CBD. 15 to 20 storeys at its peak dropping down to 6 storeys should achieve the densities of transit oriented development around subway stations. Proximity of the subway is a non arguement for building 50 storeys here. I don't hear anyone calling the Honest Ed's development at Bathurst a waste of density around a subway station

Even Toronto's unsatisable diet of consuming apartment units is not big enough to turn every neighbourhoods into 50 storey downtowns. Do you live among the skyscrapers?

 

[maestro]

So how can this be achieved? Apparently such things cannot be accomplished here because the way things work here are too complex, or so I've been told by insiders.

It can but, not here. Profit for a public sector agency outweighs sound planning.

 

[maestro]

Look at Manhattan. Now, it's filled with skyscrapers and much of the island is flattened out terrain-wise. A few centuries ago, it was just a small hilly rocky island inhabited by the Lenape.

It's true Manhattan doesn't have height limits but, it has very restrictive densities which limits the vast majority of the island from 3 to 10 floors. The skyscrapers are pretty much contained. You won't find too many 50 storey towers in lower rise neighbourhoods. The super tall building boom is a product of ridiculous real estate prices. These heights shadowing Central Park were never meant to be achieved under the densities allowed.

Manhattan and Manhattanization are very different from one another.

 

[maestro]

I don't know if we can afford to not build super dense here.

Where are people moving into this city going to live?

The argument that this shouldn't be super dense, needs to be moderated with a push to allow low-rise density in the stable neighbourhoods here.

Super dense isn't the optimal form to achieve affordability. It's not ideal to end the space crunch which exists, in part, to unoccupied investor held units.