Toronto Cumberland Square | 253.92m | 75s | KingSett Capital | Giannone Petricone

[ksun]

There should be for all intents and purposes no limit to building heights downtown. If you want low density you have almost the entire city to live in. Why deny those who want as densely populated a downtown as possible the chance to have one? It improves virtually every aspect of life for those who like that sort of life. And for those who don't, you can move a a couple subway stations further out and live in your ideal density nabe.

Yep, that's exactly what I think.
Downtown is only 3% of Toronto. If one doesn't like ultra density and thinks 70s towers suffocate you, fine, the rest 97% of the city is entirely for you to choose from. There is almost no limit for how low the density could be. Enjoy your tree lined serene streets with nothing but perfectly preserved Victorian houses, listening to bird chirp at dawn and watching squirrels frolicking at dusk. That's totally fine. There is tons of places offering that in Toronto.

However, let downtown grow to be the kind of high density area for those who like high density/noise/24 hour activity. We don't mind the noise. We don't mind the tacky Dundas Square billboards and all the light pollution. We don't expect "elbow space" on the streets. When I say density, I don't mean Liberty village kind of density - that is a very low bar. I mean Hong Kong/Manhattan/Tokyo kind of density, where practically every single street is mixed use and every building is between 5 and 100 stories.

Honestly anyone who thinks downtown is "very dense" must be out of this mind. Go talk a walk on Jarvis street, or Beverly Street, or Bathurst st, and all the side streets between John/Beverly and Bathurst, and those between Jarvis and Parliament, count how many buildings are lower than 3 stories and tell me our downtown is already "very dense". Downtown is 18 sq km, with 200,000 people. That's far from dense. Maybe so for someone from Oshawa or Windsor. Give it three times more and I wouldn't call it too crowded.

I am not proposing height just for the sake of having skyscrapers. But more residents bring more demand for retail and entertainment, more restaurants, increase of walkability as well as need for better transit. It also makes a city safer. This past weekend the Buskfest made Yonge between Queen and Carlton an extremely busy sea of people - this is what cities are supposed to look like, and I loved it and thought, wouldn't it be nice if more streets are like this and for a good half time of the year? Why are Jarvis and University almost completely devoid of people and retail for example? They should be as busy as Yonge or Queen W. Of course by adding density I don't mean to create more Bay St like dead zone. Whoever allowed that kind of planning should be fired and put in jail.

If one thinking "oh, no, this is too crowded and I don't have enough elbow space", well, all you need to do is take the subway/streetcar to a few blocks north of Bloor or east of DVP, there is as much elbow and breathing space for you as you want.

 

[Lenser]

Just wondering: who is the royal we you are purportedly are speaking on behalf of - you know, when you say downtown should be reserved for "we" who adore density, crowds, noise, light, tackiness....?

 

[Mike in TO]

This (and many other) thread has gone off the rails in always assuming that is is the "city" (either council or the planning dept.) that opposes height/density resulting in a scaled back project. I think some of the height fanatics don't take into account economic or feasibility issues. Many projects (possibly this one as well) are scaled back based on feasibility/ROI/risk based assessments made by the proponents themselves. As someone suggested earlier, the original vision which was leaked may have simply been a feasibility/visioning exercise and not at all remotely what is realistically going to be proposed.

UT is a great forum as the curtain is often pulled back and there is an opportunity to sometimes view visioning exercises that are usually only taking place behind closed doors. That doesn't mean it is a real proposal or that a smaller project means it was "scaled back" - most projects evolve and go through many iterations to determine the appropriate risk/feasibility balance that the proponent and investors are comfortable brining to the city for approval and to the market. I get tired hearing about the big bad city always scaling projects back - many developers scale their own projects back as well - this isn't Sim City, it is the real world and there are many regulatory and financial constraints and risks involved in development projects and many many decisions made along the way as projects evolve.

 

[ksun]

Just wondering: who is the royal we you are purportedly are speaking on behalf of - you know, when you say downtown should be reserved for "we" who adore density, crowds, noise, light, tackiness....?

Those who live in highrises between Parliament and Bathurst south of Bloor who want ultra dense urban lifestyle (versus somewhere more quaint areas such as Lesleville or Leaside) I guess.

Many projects (possibly this one as well) are scaled back based on feasibility/ROI/risk based assessments made by the proponents themselves.

It is entirely possible and in which case one can't complain about anything.

What I often find funny is that many who don't actually live in downtown oppose these kind of tall projects located in downtown due to height/density - this is equivalent of me protesting against a project happening in Riverdale based on the fact that it is 5 stories, instead of my dream height of 55 stories.

 

[Uptowner]

Just wondering: who is the royal we you are purportedly are speaking on behalf of - you know, when you say downtown should be reserved for "we" who adore density, crowds, noise, light, tackiness....?

I understand him to be speaking for the roughly 600k who would be living there in the scenario he outlined. Since market prices wouldn't be cheap people living there would presumably be there by choice. If we can get downtown to that point it would therefore necessarily be because people wanted to live like that.

I think the Chinese cities talk will definitely be considered OT but any description of them as not at a walkable scale does not ring true expect for in areas that are newly developed on the outskirts of cities. I started to write more on the topic but erased it as I doubt that is what people come on the Cumberland Terrace thread to read about.

I will make that my last word on this and hope CT turns out as well as possible.

 

[interchange42]

Those who live in highrises between Parliament and Bathurst south of Bloor who want ultra dense urban lifestyle (versus somewhere more quaint areas such as Lesleville or Leaside) I guess.

You're kidding yourself if you believe that everyone who lives within the boundaries you described want what you want. You can't even claim a majority want that without having some stats to back you up.

42

 

[Canuck]

This (and many other) thread has gone off the rails in always assuming that is is the "city" (either council or the planning dept.) that opposes height/density resulting in a scaled back project. I think some of the height fanatics don't take into account economic or feasibility issues. Many projects (possibly this one as well) are scaled back based on feasibility/ROI/risk based assessments made by the proponents themselves. As someone suggested earlier, the original vision which was leaked may have simply been a feasibility/visioning exercise and not at all remotely what is realistically going to be proposed.

UT is a great forum as the curtain is often pulled back and there is an opportunity to sometimes view visioning exercises that are usually only taking place behind closed doors. That doesn't mean it is a real proposal or that a smaller project means it was "scaled back" - most projects evolve and go through many iterations to determine the appropriate risk/feasibility balance that the proponent and investors are comfortable brining to the city for approval and to the market. I get tired hearing about the big bad city always scaling projects back - many developers scale their own projects back as well - this isn't Sim City, it is the real world and there are many regulatory and financial constraints and risks involved in development projects and many many decisions made along the way as projects evolve.

Thanks Mike for you stable voice calling for calm, and respecting the methods of the market (to the determent of fan-boys everywhere).

 

[Uptowner]

Many projects (possibly this one as well) are scaled back based on feasibility/ROI/risk based assessments made by the proponents themselves...this isn't Sim City, it is the real world and there are many regulatory and financial constraints and risks involved in development projects and many many decisions made along the way as projects evolve.

If it isn't the city then there is nothing to complain about. However, we all know the city does intervene over height downtown sometimes and in virtually all cases I believe that is a mistake. I understand people disagree and I won't convince them. As they make their voices heard I feel mine should be added to the cacophony too.

 

[Uptowner]

You're kidding yourself if you believe that everyone who lives within the boundaries you described want what you want. You can't even claim a majority want that without having some stats to back you up.

42

It isn't about the 200k who are living there now it is about the 600k who would choose to live there at mostly market rates under his scenario. Why should we exclude their voices? If you are right then eventually we would come to a point when people would simply refuse to move into new developments because the area was too crowded, so I guess it is a moot point anyway. Personally, I can't see that happening.

 

[ksun]

You're kidding yourself if you believe that everyone who lives within the boundaries you described want what you want. You can't even claim a majority want that without having some stats to back you up.

42

True I can't speak for all, but I did specifically said those in "highrises", who most likely won't oppose a proposal based it is too "tall". Those living in lowrises in DT probably think differently because a 20 story at Spadina/College makes them outraged.

but I do maintain my position that those who have no interest living downtown and strongly prefer low/mid rise quiet living don't get a say in how DT should be developed, just like I don't get to decide how Leslieville should evolve.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Why should we exclude their voices? If you are right then eventually we would come to a point when people would simply refuse to move into new developments because the area was too crowded, so I guess it is a moot point anyway. Personally, I can't see that happening.

Their voices? It wasn't like said potential residents will refuse to because some project or another got chopped 5 floors, given the amount of offerings on the market. So much for THAT altruistic argument.

True I can't speak for all, but I did specifically said those in "highrises", who most likely won't oppose a proposal based it is too "tall". Those living in lowrises in DT probably think differently because a 20 story at Spadina/College makes them outraged.

but I do maintain my position that those who have no interest living downtown and strongly prefer low/mid rise quiet living don't get a say in how DT should be developed, just like I don't get to decide how Leslieville should evolve.

Except that you clearly haven't noticed the opposition against such projects by those who are currently living in one when it is their views, their access to sunlight that is being impeded upon - and unlike park space, the latter is a private good.

And on the issue of "say" - unless you live smack right in the middle of Yorkville, I am not sure why you get to "have a say" regarding developments in the neigbhourhood, by your definition.

AoD

 

[ksun]

Except that you clearly haven't noticed the opposition against such projects by those who are currently living in one when it is their views, their access to sunlight that is being impeded upon - and unlike park space, the latter is a private good.

AoD

Haha. I am not surprised.
Even for these unban people, a fantastic skyscraper somewhere else downtown is excellent news, but as long as it blocks part of their nice city view, they go completely NIMBY.
This is just human nature.

We admire Manhattan's density and vibrancy without thinking about the sacrifices Manhattan residents need to give up in exchange for that - things like views or some sunlight during certain time of the day. If we want more urban density, we need to give up something.

Anyway, I think a good balance needs to be attained. Private good shouldn't be considered as sacred and inviolable (not being excessive of course) if it brings a common good for the city. If by building a new tower some residents nearby lose 50% of their view and 2 hour of sunlight a day, my position is that they just have to deal with it. You live in the city core, and no one's view and sunlight should be guaranteed.

 

[Uptowner]

Their voices? It wasn't like said potential residents will refuse to because some project or another got chopped 5 floors, given the amount of offerings on the market. So much for THAT altruistic argument.
AoD

I do get it. Many seem to be happy that, for example, Casa III had its head lopped off. I just happen to think the fact of it and some people's reaction to it are unfortunate. I think all it would have done is added 5 (I think) more floors of happy people to Charles/Hayden. Not much more to be said, I guess.

 

[Big Daddy]

This (and many other) thread has gone off the rails in always assuming that is is the "city" (either council or the planning dept.) that opposes height/density resulting in a scaled back project. I think some of the height fanatics don't take into account economic or feasibility issues. Many projects (possibly this one as well) are scaled back based on feasibility/ROI/risk based assessments made by the proponents themselves. As someone suggested earlier, the original vision which was leaked may have simply been a feasibility/visioning exercise and not at all remotely what is realistically going to be proposed.

UT is a great forum as the curtain is often pulled back and there is an opportunity to sometimes view visioning exercises that are usually only taking place behind closed doors. That doesn't mean it is a real proposal or that a smaller project means it was "scaled back" - most projects evolve and go through many iterations to determine the appropriate risk/feasibility balance that the proponent and investors are comfortable brining to the city for approval and to the market. I get tired hearing about the big bad city always scaling projects back - many developers scale their own projects back as well - this isn't Sim City, it is the real world and there are many regulatory and financial constraints and risks involved in development projects and many many decisions made along the way as projects evolve.

This is very true and the problem, like Mike said, is "we" are now so well connected that we see projects far, far too early. We expect them to be built as originally proposed even if the proposal was intended only as a discussion point, to try to achieve the maximum density possible (often less than first proposed).

I think the Mirvish Project, One Yonge project and the Oxford project at the convention Centre are other examples of this. I think it is very likely these projects will ultimately be much smaller than first proposed.

 

[pw20]

This is very true and the problem, like Mike said, is "we" are now so well connected that we see projects far, far too early. We expect them to be built as originally proposed even if the proposal was intended only as a discussion point, to try to achieve the maximum density possible (often less than first proposed).

I think the Mirvish Project, One Yonge project and the Oxford project at the convention Centre are other examples of this. I think it is very likely these projects will ultimately be much smaller than first proposed.

What's also been forgotten, which I alluded to in one of my posts, was the goal of city planning to create some unique pedestrian spaces by reviving an old laneway; the goal is to create a unique block that supports density AND celebrates yorkville's heritage. I'm excited to see what happens in this block to be honest and am more excited about that than the end height of a tower...

There are a lot of moving pieces to this entire block as Mike in TO quite rightfully said - Toronto isn't Sim City you can't just plop down buildings and hope for the best.