Toronto CampusOne Student Residence (was University Place) | 79.85m | 25s | Knightstone | Diamond Schmitt

This thread's getting to be scary. Like Ke$ha puking in Peggy Atwood's lap or something...
 
I think what he's getting at is that if this tower goes through, it will set a precedent for the area in terms of how far above current density and height limits developers can expect to be granted. This in turn will cause property values to rise immensely thus pricing out the current uses in Kensington. In a word, gentrification. Even if this isn't what Jayomatic is suggesting, I think it's still a valid concern. And to those who claim there should be no protest about this development as the area surrounding it is merely filled with 'decrepit' housing or is a 'ghetto', even if this were true, why should people less better off have less of a say about how change affects their neighbourhood?
Click to expand...

This is exactly what I was getting at. Sure its a wonderful looking building that I'd love to see anywhere, in particular, I'd rather have this behind Tiff than the crap that's proposed now. If this goes through, the pressure to develop the immediate neighborhood is right around the corner and we've seen how one building can completely change the planning within an area. Just look what Tiff and MV5 did for King West. If I could trust Canadian developers to design an adequate replacement I'd feel more comfortable but based on the past 10 years of development, I can't. You'd probably end up replacing unique retailers with dry cleaners, banks and sandwich franchises. Not exactly my idea of a fun Kensington.
 
Rowe said:
To be honest I do not understand why some are against this building. All I ever see is "ugh another box" or "gross its a glass blue box"... finally something that is at least interesting and all we see is "oh its out of context" and "it doesn't fit in the neighbourhood."
Click to expand...

Actually, there's a good reason for this project being "finally something that is at least interesting" and all we see is "oh it's out of context". It's a general trend I've noticed that quite often, when a developer knows that they're pushing the boundaries of what is acceptable at a given location, and when they're aware that their development will be controversial, they propose something with bold architecture. It's not a coincidence; it's a strategy to generate support that's also conveniently divisive.

With a low-rise neighbourhood to the south, one that's apparently not affluent enough to matter, and a low-rise campus to the north that pushes these undesirable towers conveniently out of their domain, I don't see how the context isn't relevant. Why not look at the satellite imagery and then try street view to see the extensive and dense low-rise neighbourhood that exists, one that does in fact matter. Just because it's not all middle class hardly means its quality of life is expendable.

What I do see on this part of College Street is a streetscape distinguished by a rare concentration of attractive midrise buildings from different eras, nurtured by successive generations up to recent additions like Lillian H. Smith library and CCBR. The gradual but noticeable decline in sensitivity to context in this city may put us on a path to a sharp, 1970s reform era backlash to development, which I really wouldn't want to see. Hence, I advocate for context-respectful development.
 
Last edited:
Jayomatic said:
This is exactly what I was getting at. Sure its a wonderful looking building that I'd love to see anywhere, in particular, I'd rather have this behind Tiff than the crap that's proposed now. If this goes through, the pressure to develop the immediate neighborhood is right around the corner and we've seen how one building can completely change the planning within an area. Just look what Tiff and MV5 did for King West. If I could trust Canadian developers to design an adequate replacement I'd feel more comfortable but based on the past 10 years of development, I can't. You'd probably end up replacing unique retailers with dry cleaners, banks and sandwich franchises. Not exactly my idea of a fun Kensington.
Click to expand...

This is essentially correct. If this building goes through, every subsequent application rejected by the city will likely end up going to the OMB. That board will inevitably use the tallest structure in the area as a precedent for all other proposals rejected by the city in making their decision. Not everything may end up at 40 floors, but a cluster of 20 and 30 floor buildings will have the same effect on the area. In anticipation of this, land owners interested in driving up the value of their property in anticipation of selling it to a developer will all step up with proposals for tall buildings and subsequent appointments at the OMB.

If some people think this area is "monotonous" due to the lack of tall buildings, might I suggest a quick review of City Place in order to see how a high rise neighbourhood can be even more monotonous.
 
yyzer said:
I don't think there is any connection whatsoever between this site and Kensington Market...they are worlds apart...
Click to expand...

I completely disagree. If you can build a 40s building on College east of Spadina, then it becomes appropriate to build a 40s building on the west side of Spadina - say, for instance, that strip plaza at Augusta and College.

I really wish they'd build this at Bloor and Bedford.
 
Silence&Motion said:
I completely disagree. If you can build a 40s building on College east of Spadina, then it becomes appropriate to build a 40s building on the west side of Spadina - say, for instance, that strip plaza at Augusta and College.

I really wish they'd build this at Bloor and Bedford.
Click to expand...

It wouldn't be difficult to simply make Spadina a boundry, west of which there can be no tall developments. Didn't they do something like that for north of Queen Street?
 
At some point in the future, a lack of viable building sites in the area bound by the lake, Dupont, the Don River and Spadina, will necessitate the need to develop areas just outside these boundaries. A better solution might be to encourage developers, via tax incentives, to build medium density, mixed use buildings, along major arteries throughout the city. I would love to see 4 - 6 storey mixed use buildings lining street like Eglinton, Lawrence, Shepperd, Warden and Keele. Keep the 20 storey + towers in the core or at major transit intersections.
 
a low-rise campus to the north that pushes these undesirable towers conveniently out of their domain
Click to expand...
And this is an excellent point -- if the university wants to build 40 storey residence towers, they could easily do it on the campus proper, without nearly as much push back. This development is quite cynical on the part of UofT.
 
Tulse said:
And this is an excellent point -- if the university wants to build 40 storey residence towers, they could easily do it on the campus proper, without nearly as much push back. This development is quite cynical on the part of UofT.
Click to expand...

Cynical in what sense?
 
Though it isn't as if there'd be no urbanistic problems building such a thing anywhere on or proximate to the campus. I mean, Spadina closer to Bloor is one spot where a 40-storey residence would make more urbanistic-respect sense opposite rather than within the campus...
 
Tulse said:
In the sense that they are shoving this massive building on a neighbourhood without much political clout, rather than take up space in the confines of their own campus.
Click to expand...

Not to mention how they vehemently opposed the ROM condo proposal. I guess it's different if the tower isn't being proposed by the University. Talk about a double standard.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top