Toronto Festival Tower and tiff Lightbox | 156.96m | 42s | Daniels | KPMB

But these things have more to do, with the quality of the buildings at street level, than they do with regards to hieght.

If there are very animated ground level workings in the building, regardless of height the building will create a very lively enviroment. You can have a mid rise with zero activity at street level and a highrise which flows life out into the street.
 
I do agree that there are other factors at play but I have yet to see an example of one anywhere in this city working. I just think that scale of these developments will create a cold, windy, unpleasant experience.

But are there examples of something like this working in other cities?
 
I mean there is no such thing as rigid as high rises dont work, and mid rises do. New York and Chicago then are pretty cold, uninviting, unpleasant places to be then.
blanket statments wont work here, and in the entertainment district you have the plus of the low rise factory-wharehouse buildings being there already and not going anywhere, and the coming onslaught of skyscrapers just adding to the neighbourhood mix.
 
Dead streets/highrise districts comes from things like like big office tower lobbies dominating at street level (or other long frontages), modernist plazas empty outside of lunch hour, single use/day-time only districts, poorly designed retail frontages (or stuffing all the retail inside), poor lighting, bulky buildings blocking light, and car-oriented infrastructure. Just avoiding large dead sections of street frontage is very important (I'm not sure this building will do that)

For Toronto you can find lots of areas in the CBD dominated by blank walls (sometimes with windows), office building lobbies, loading docks/parking entrances, and when there is a retail location it's taken up by a bank. it also doesn't help that the PATH system takes a lot of traffic off the streets.
 
Last edited:
We already have a perfect example of this type of planning not working. Just walk up Bay Street between Dundas and Bloor. It's bordered by large condos on both sides with the exact same retail that many of these new condos propose. Yet I don't see anyone talking about how great Bay Street is.

Midtown Manhattan is a perfect example of this type of planning. Up and down sections of midtown, you are surrounded by massive condos with ground floor retail, only for the area to be completely lifeless during the evening. It's windy, cold and overwhelming. The nicest areas of Manhattan and Toronto are areas of midrise development.

Even if you read every piece of official planning documents, you'll always hear them talking about preserving a midrise scale of development while reserving larger buildings towards intersections. If you are to look at all the plans in the works, your looking at a cluster of condos between 36 and 50 stories within 2 single blocks. This doesn't seem like responsible planning if you ask me or any other planner.

Just because you have a neighbourhood of 10 story midrise buildings, it doesn't justify throwing up buildings 4 times the height.
 
Last edited:
Bay Street between Dundas and Bloor is purely residential.

The Entertainment district is the "Entertainment District" and the skyscrapers coming into the area are likely there to compliment the existing low rise development that are already there and extremely active. With the additional density we will see more life there during the afternoon time hours and on weekdays.. which is currently not the case.
 
It must be easier for restaurants, bars, etc to get leasing in the old 2-3 storey buildings than in a large tower (which all seem to be Shoppers/bank/dry cleaner/rabbas etc), especially for non-chain businesses. Plus if they move to an existing street they are benefiting from agglomeration rather than trying to be a pioneer for more after-hours street life on Bay.

I don't think this affects just high rises, but its a potential problem with the Avenues plan as well.
 
Last edited:
We already have a perfect example of this type of planning not working. Just walk up Bay Street between Dundas and Bloor. It's bordered by large condos on both sides with the exact same retail that many of these new condos propose. Yet I don't see anyone talking about how great Bay Street is.

Midtown Manhattan is a perfect example of this type of planning. Up and down sections of midtown, you are surrounded by massive condos with ground floor retail, only for the area to be completely lifeless during the evening. It's windy, cold and overwhelming. The nicest areas of Manhattan and Toronto are areas of midrise development.

Even if you read every piece of official planning documents, you'll always hear them talking about preserving a midrise scale of development while reserving larger buildings towards intersections. If you are to look at all the plans in the works, your looking at a cluster of condos between 36 and 50 stories within 2 single blocks. This doesn't seem like responsible planning if you ask me or any other planner.

Just because you have a neighbourhood of 10 story midrise buildings, it doesn't justify throwing up buildings 4 times the height.

I understand that Bay north of Dundas is lifeless because it is nothing but condos (just like the harbourfront), but I think it's false to say that it's the height of the buildings themselves that make those areas dreary. Rather I think it's the lack of attractions. King West simply doesn't suffer from that problem.

You say that it would be much better for this neighbourhood if only projects like EAST Lofts were built. I don't see how this would add anything to the neighbourhood if there were only a bank branch and a dry cleaners in the base.
 
We already have a perfect example of this type of planning not working. Just walk up Bay Street between Dundas and Bloor. It's bordered by large condos on both sides with the exact same retail that many of these new condos propose. Yet I don't see anyone talking about how great Bay Street is.

Midtown Manhattan is a perfect example of this type of planning. Up and down sections of midtown, you are surrounded by massive condos with ground floor retail, only for the area to be completely lifeless during the evening. It's windy, cold and overwhelming. The nicest areas of Manhattan and Toronto are areas of midrise development.

Even if you read every piece of official planning documents, you'll always hear them talking about preserving a midrise scale of development while reserving larger buildings towards intersections. If you are to look at all the plans in the works, your looking at a cluster of condos between 36 and 50 stories within 2 single blocks. This doesn't seem like responsible planning if you ask me or any other planner.

Just because you have a neighbourhood of 10 story midrise buildings, it doesn't justify throwing up buildings 4 times the height.

One of the main problems I have with condos on Bay are the bases. They're poorly done for the most part. Line them up in a row and add the usual suspects (dry cleaners, etc.) and you have a recipe for disaster.

I think some highrises in the Entertainment/Theatre District could work as long as the projects have well designed, dynamic bases. I wouldn't' want too many of them though.
 
I think my problem is that I don't trust developers to build lively streetfront retail spaces that are something other than single story dry cleaners or banks. Until they prove otherwise, I'm still skeptical.
 
I think my problem is that I don't trust developers to build lively streetfront retail spaces that are something other than single story dry cleaners or banks. Until they prove otherwise, I'm still skeptical.

I've never understood why the city doesn't demand more from them.
 
I think my problem is that I don't trust developers to build lively streetfront retail spaces that are something other than single story dry cleaners or banks. Until they prove otherwise, I'm still skeptical.

I think we can all agree that the podium/base will be the best part of the Lightbox/Festival Tower. It may overwhelm the street, but it sure will add a good amount of activity throughout the year.
 
Sorry for the confusion. Most of my comments about retail spaces are in regard to other developments in the area. From what i've heard about lightbox, the podium should be fantastic.
 
I think my problem is that I don't trust developers to build lively streetfront retail spaces that are something other than single story dry cleaners or banks. Until they prove otherwise, I'm still skeptical.

Unless custom-built for chains, new storefronts are invariably not wide or deep enough to recreate the traditional retail spaces seen in pre-condo buildings. Even if more or less appropriate spaces are built, they may have finishes/layouts/lease rates targeted to specific retail sectors or pricepoints, preempting innovative entrepreneurs or independent stores. Architects are sometimes so concerned with the overall aesthetic vision of the project, or planners/councillors so concerned with everything being neat and tidy, that storefronts are built with a variety of sterile plate glass, precast, and plastic sheet metal panels and the only customizable element is one backlit sign, above the door and below some pathetic little awning. Worse, this little sign might be behind a horrible arcade. Some blocks are moderately successful if chain stores move in, and others have older buildings mixed in, but

I attended a recent design review panel and the project had proposed retail along a main street but nothing was rendered other than a solid wall of plate glass. It looked good in the renderings and did fit the tower above, but when asked by a panel member how this wall of glass was to be articulated in terms of [apparently trivial] details like doors and signs, the architect hadn't really given it much thought. Yeah, this retail facade was only an entire block long and the only part of the complex visible from street/eye level, so why give it any thought? After all, only renderings or photos of the whole complex will appear in the architect's portfolio.... At least the design review panel concept is showing promise and should bear fruit soon.

On the forum we're frequently lamenting the disrepair and abuse suffered by historic storefronts on streets like Queen and Yonge, where bricks are painted purple or covered up by aluminum siding, and so on. Yet new developments are built to oppressively monotonous standards, often not even at human scales, and are articulated by voids, recesses, and precast protuberances. Why can't newly developed storefronts be the ones covered with purple polka dots and funky wood and metal siding? Or, at least, interesting brick and tile work instead of precast panels? Or, you know, actually visible and interesting signage? No one's going to miss the plastic panels in seven shades of grey or the precast pillars that end up cracked and discoloured before the stores have a chance to open. Hopefully, vibrant renovations and customizations will occur when the precast falls off in a decade or two, but variety within blocks may be permanently stymied by the fact that each block has only one owner dictating appearances and changes...it's so much more difficult for lively and interesting retail and restaurants to emerge when the buildings themselves at so dreary and crude at eye level.

Rant over :)
 
Your rant seems to ignore the reality of retail development. The 'owner' owns the building only in most cases and the space is leased out to McDonald's, Shopper's Drug Mart etc.. who have 'standards' for how their
stores look. The owner (of the building) can try and dictate some design guide
lines in the lease but the retailor can simply say no in lease negotiations. In a
market such as this the owner (of the building) wants tenants and will give them pretty much what they want. With stores facing the exterior (or interior in the case of a mall) all the projects I have been invovled with the architect designs the overall concept and the units are a shell and it is up to the tenant what the store interior/storefront will look like. In the case of exterior facing tenants the cities urban design guide lines also apply.
 

Back
Top