raptor
Senior Member
Anyone who believed they are actually getting that much density must be delusional.
Toronto Chelsea Green (was 33 Gerrard) | 297.25m | 90s | Great Eagle | a—A
- Thread starter markel
- Start date
ProjectEnd
Superstar
But that's the way things go. If they'd initially come in with what they got in the end, it would have been further-reduced. In the absence of an appropriate, modern, zoning by-law, first submissions are really just informed crap shoot.
I still would have been fine with the initial ask but here we are...
Big Daddy
Senior Member
Could be - or it could be that the city of Toronto is unusually unfocused in its building policy.
I would rather the city develop some stronger architectural policies (aesthetics, design, public domain) rather than simply focusing on density.
The city approves the most mundane, unattractive buildings imaginable yet feels it has achieved something simply by limiting density.
Northern Light
Superstar
Does it limit Density? With densities here already exceeding those in any other Canadian City or Montreal, on a city-wide basis; downtown Toronto density ranges from 20,000 per km2 to over 43000.
That's among the highest in the world.
How much more would be enough to please you?
You don't suppose there might be other considerations at play, like minimum separation distances so you're not staring into your neighbours window, and maybe periodically see sunshine.
Shadowing, not only ensuring people access to sun, but trees, so the ground isn't hopelessly sterile.
The practical limitations of infrastructure. Have you noticed any congestion in Toronto? Any overcrowded schools?
The obsession you have with unlimited height and density is just too much to take.
No one here is arguing for a 10-storey height cap, nor 20, nor 30..............
Downtown Toronto already exceeds the average density of Manhattan, where population density is 25,000 per km2 and change.
It's likely to substantially exceed Manhattan's number based on current and projected approvals over the next 20 years.
There is no disagreeing that aesthetics of some proposals could be better; but Toronto has no legislative authority in this area, so the point is moot.
Last edited:
alklay
Senior Member
Great reply Northern Light. I fail to see how the reduction of density on this site equals "the city is against reasonable density downtown".
salsa
Senior Member
Yikes. There is no way in hell this city will be prepared for what's coming.
Big Daddy
Senior Member
Typical rant response to a general comment. "Obsession with unlimited height??" where did that come from?
"10 storey height cap" really? You drew that from my comment?
If you actually read my post - before your implosion - I said "I would rather the city develop some stronger architectural policies (aesthetics, design, public domain)"
I recognize the fact that they don't have this power at present, but it would be something that would be worth pursuing, rather than simply focusing on density. This would be something that might require legislation but it would be worth pursuing.
Lenser
Senior Member
I can readily agree with the idea that work on improving the public domain should be a priority for this city. But I disagree with the notion of "stronger architectural policies" where they concern aesthetics. Sounds like a fine idea in its own right but in practise it actually might make for a dreadfully bureaucratic design-by-committee approach, one that kills true creativity and innovation - a case where the solution turns out to be far worse than the problem it's ostensibly meant to address.
I don't know that it's all that easy to assign rules and regulations according to some widely agreed-upon notion of aesthetics.
I don't know that it's all that easy to assign rules and regulations according to some widely agreed-upon notion of aesthetics.
Last edited:
raptor
Senior Member
raptor
Senior Member
1667 condo units, 166 rental units.
Really deep excavation: 5 parking levels + 2 concourse levels
Really deep excavation: 5 parking levels + 2 concourse levels
ushahid
Senior Member
that hotel building is so sweet.
Automation Gallery
Superstar
Which one?..the one that's there or the one replacing it
ushahid
Senior Member
the new one.
drum118
Superstar
The city screw itself decades ago by not only building more transit, but upgrading 100 year old infrastructure to not only meet current needs but future needs. It also allow developer to go wild in building boring cheap looking building and tearing heritage buildings down for these run of the mill buildings along with a quick buck.
This area is going to be really density not only with this site, but other sites next to it or within a block of them. Yonge St top to bottom is going to be very density compare to rest of the city
Height is the future, as it's the only place you can put the wave of new residents that are on their way and up to 2050.
I hope material for this site is better than what we have been seeing the last decade along with public realm. We need to stop building parking spots since there will be no place they can get to in the core, let alone in the city as it will be grid lock 7/24.
Still waiting for the 100+ floor tower and a good location for one here.
This area is going to be really density not only with this site, but other sites next to it or within a block of them. Yonge St top to bottom is going to be very density compare to rest of the city
Height is the future, as it's the only place you can put the wave of new residents that are on their way and up to 2050.
I hope material for this site is better than what we have been seeing the last decade along with public realm. We need to stop building parking spots since there will be no place they can get to in the core, let alone in the city as it will be grid lock 7/24.
Still waiting for the 100+ floor tower and a good location for one here.
