Toronto Chelsea Green (was 33 Gerrard) | 297.25m | 90s | Great Eagle | a—A

[Contra]

That first render is one of the most convincingly realistic ones I've seen in a long time. It screams Norm Li to me as he always seems to pick just the perfect lighting for these aerial renders.

 

[ushahid]

more details and renders

View attachment 220610View attachment 220611View attachment 220616View attachment 220612View attachment 220613View attachment 220614View attachment 220615

as of what we have seen so far, i think we dont have to worry about the quality and material.

 

[Mercenary]

It's quite strange that Yonge and Gerrard will have one of the strongest concentration of tall buildings.

I think it should have been Yonge and Dundas. Just like Times Square. It's hemmed in by tall buildings. Dundas Sq lacks that feel but hopefully that will change.

 

[innsertnamehere]

It's quite strange that Yonge and Gerrard will have one of the strongest concentration of tall buildings.

I think it should have been Yonge and Dundas. Just like Times Square. It's hemmed in by tall buildings. Dundas Sq lacks that feel but hopefully that will change.

much of Dundas Square is under the Helicopter flight path for St Mikes and Sick Kids, which makes really tall buildings impossible.

 

[Contra]

Yonge and Lake Shore, Yonge and Gerrard and Yonge and Bloor will make for some nice balance of tall buildings from any east/west view in the coming years.

 

[TossYourJacket]

Hopefully we can get a North entrance to Dundas station sooner than later. Between that and the South entrance to College station we should have easy subway access for the Yonge-Gerrard cluster

 

[Yegger]

I like the ground level based on the renders as it represents a fresh take and gives me New York vibes. I’m skeptical about how much sunlight they’d be getting and how green they’d end up, given the surrounding height. Note how they’ve conveniently ignored YSL across the street which is about the same height as the tallest here.

 

[AlexBozikovic]

By wrecking tall buildings, are we contributing to the climate crisis?

There’s a growing movement to view existing buildings as resources of ‘embodied energy’ that need to be preserved

www.theglobeandmail.com

 

[ushahid]

Is there a way we can access it without subscription. U r the author U must have a copy in ur computer.

 

[ardwold1]

Is there a way we can access it without subscription. U r the author U must have a copy in ur computer.

You outdo yourself...yikes.

 

[someMidTowner]

Is there a way we can access it without subscription. U r the author U must have a copy in ur computer.

Do you walk into stores and ask for free merchandise too?

 

[Midtown Urbanist]

Jokes aside, a synopsis of the article might be conducive to initiating a discussion.

 

[someMidTowner]

Jokes aside, a synopsis of the article might be conducive to initiating a discussion.

Sustainability of keeping existing tall buildings vs replacing with even taller new buildings. Now subscribe and read it because it's worth your money.

 

[Midtown Urbanist]

Well, I don't mean to be callous towards the climate crisis, but there are many objectives of redevelopment (as outlined in the Toronto Official Plan and elsewhere) and combating climate change is just one objective.

Preserving existing tall buildings because the energy exerted in demolishing and redeveloping a new building would be high, does not do much for the public realm, housing supply, community building and wider economic investment. And since we are not in the business of touching our "established" neighbourhoods, the end result would be more urban sprawl and economic disparity as the demand for housing isn't going to dwindle.

This site is a good example. The Chelsea Green redevelopment will reconnect Walton Street with Yonge Street and enhance pedestrian mobility and (based on the renders we've seen) be a fantastic addition to the public realm.

 

[innsertnamehere]

If you read the article It advocates for changing our attitudes of not touching neighbourhoods.