Toronto Forma | 308m | 84s | Great Gulf | Gehry Partners

[44 North]

Care to link to some of these studies/articles? As someone who feels a general "malaise" living in a low density areas, I'd be genuinely interested to read them.

http://www.nature.com/news/stress-and-the-city-urban-decay-1.11556
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/8307024.stm
http://www.treehugger.com/urban-design/living-cities-may-literally-be-driving-us-insane.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/a...-infertile-blind-depressed-causes-cancer.html
http://www.human.cornell.edu/outreach/upload/CHE_DEA_NaturalEnvironments.pdf
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-depression-cure/200907/social-isolation-modern-plague
http://www.interdisciplinarythemes.org/journal/index.php/itj/article/viewFile/51/33

The last three I found in a blog by someone who shared my view on this topic in this thread. His website is Front65 and he had a good opinion piece on this.

I'm not opposed to increases in density, nor am I opposed to medium and high-density. And I'm sure many like you do suffer from a general malaise by living in low-density areas. What I'm attacking here is ultra and hyper densities in areas that are not designed for it, and are overtaxed by a high population to begin with. This is where the infrastructure and greenspace issue comes in. Should I provide links to studies that show how greenspace is beneficial, or is that one a bit obvious?

 

[44 North]

@TigerMaster

The issue is not black and white, as I'm sure you're aware. And frankly it debases your argument to make the fallacious leap that I'm promoting auto-centric sprawl by being against ultra-high density downtown pockets.

 

[Ramako]

http://www.nature.com/news/stress-and-the-city-urban-decay-1.11556
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/8307024.stm
http://www.treehugger.com/urban-design/living-cities-may-literally-be-driving-us-insane.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/a...-infertile-blind-depressed-causes-cancer.html
http://www.human.cornell.edu/outreach/upload/CHE_DEA_NaturalEnvironments.pdf
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-depression-cure/200907/social-isolation-modern-plague
http://www.interdisciplinarythemes.org/journal/index.php/itj/article/viewFile/51/33

The last three I found in a blog by someone who shared my view on this topic in this thread. His website is Front65 and he had a good opinion piece on this.

I'm not opposed to increases in density, nor am I opposed to medium and high-density. And I'm sure many like you do suffer from a general malaise by living in low-density areas. What I'm attacking here is ultra and hyper densities in areas that are not designed for it, and are overtaxed by a high population to begin with. This is where the infrastructure and greenspace issue comes in. Should I provide links to studies that show how greenspace is beneficial, or is that one a bit obvious?

Thanks. I'll definitely take a look at this stuff. That being said, residentially speaking, this is a predominately vertical neighbourhood. I would guess that the people who would choose to live in this development and in this neighbourhood would, like me, appreciate high density living and the crowded sidewalks and parks that come with it.

 

[TheTigerMaster]

@TigerMaster

The issue is not black and white, as I'm sure you're aware. And frankly it debases your argument to make the fallacious leap that I'm promoting auto-centric sprawl by being against ultra-high density downtown pockets.

You said "higher density areas". From that I assumed you meant anything that wasn't a suburban area and not "ultra-high density downtown pockets".

 

[DtTO]

Until this City gets rid of the OMB oversight and can lock-in a design quality with a no-changes rule, this is the way it is going to remain with this idiotic cat and mouse game.

Giving more power to a bunch of overzealous, corrupt, power hungry "leaders"? No thanks. The OMB absolutely has to have oversight over Toronto, otherwise, councillors would just give in to NIMBY demands in order to gain votes, and the city would stagnate.

 

[fedplanner]

They will criticize this project but allow glass boxes like Aura and numerous other crap to be built.

To be fair, Aura was rejected by city planning primarily because of height and density concerns. The city initially agreed with its planners and rejected the proposal. The project was appealed to the OMB. It exists today because Council and the developer reached an agreement before the conclusion of an OMB appeal process. This location was former a parking lot on a subway line, so I fully support the densities at this site.

Looking at the construction photos of Aura posted on this forum reaffirms my belief that there are some really cheap architects and developers out there. The tower is not what upsets me the most. It's the podium that just makes me sad.

Back on topic... i24 is probably right. It's up to Council to decide because the planners will almost certainly have to recommend rejection if evaluating against approved planning documents. They are limited to how much weight they can give to the quality of the design. There is nothing in the zoning bylaws that mandates it (good design isn't something that can easily be codified.)

I still support Gehry+Mirvish, but if the density is significantly decreased or if the quality of the architectural design is scaled back, I say we keep the heritage buildings instead. It's a very vibrant block on King Street.

Wasn't there an alternative plan floating around to kill one of the towers and increase the heights of the other two while fully preserving one of the more important heritage buildings?

 

[Lansdude]

Care to link to some of these studies/articles? As someone who feels a general "malaise" living in a low density areas, I'd be genuinely interested to read them.

You haven't seen the studies where they record the malaise brainwaves of high-density vs. low-density residents? I believe the malaise factor is something like 1.56 +- .05 with a 95% confidence interval.

 

[diminutive]

http://www.nature.com/news/stress-and-the-city-urban-decay-1.11556
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/8307024.stm
http://www.treehugger.com/urban-design/living-cities-may-literally-be-driving-us-insane.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/a...-infertile-blind-depressed-causes-cancer.html
http://www.human.cornell.edu/outreach/upload/CHE_DEA_NaturalEnvironments.pdf
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-depression-cure/200907/social-isolation-modern-plague
http://www.interdisciplinarythemes.org/journal/index.php/itj/article/viewFile/51/33

The last three I found in a blog by someone who shared my view on this topic in this thread. His website is Front65 and he had a good opinion piece on this.

I'm not opposed to increases in density, nor am I opposed to medium and high-density. And I'm sure many like you do suffer from a general malaise by living in low-density areas. What I'm attacking here is ultra and hyper densities in areas that are not designed for it, and are overtaxed by a high population to begin with. This is where the infrastructure and greenspace issue comes in. Should I provide links to studies that show how greenspace is beneficial, or is that one a bit obvious?

This is ridiculous. Several of those article reference the same "Camberwell Study," which doesn't even deal with 'dense urban areas.' It doesn't suggest that some densities are worse than others. None of the studies you link make any distinction between low, medium, high or 'ultra-high' density areas, nor is it even clear what those terms mean when you use them.

The only exception is the last one, which is methodologically ridiculous. It's based solely on 81 interviews in some Indonesian suburb. Just looking at the issues it describes it's quite clear that NONE of them would apply here. Unless you're seriously comparing overcrowded flats in Indonesia where waste isn't collected and running water isn't reliable to a super-premium Toronto condominium designed by the world's most famous architect, I'm not sure why you include it.

 

[diminutive]

Numerous studies that prove the general malaise brought about by higher density living. As well as being able to deduce that King is a nightmare to drive on, take transit on, even walk on for much of the day, and there are very few parks or schools in the area. So it should be fairly easy to figure out that adding the equivalent of a small city stuffed into a half a block obviously isn't going to improve the situation.

The transit argument is the worst reason to reject Mirvish-Gehry. The City's done extensive work on the matter with pretty unambiguous results; residential units built within the core area reduce trips into the core area almost 1:1.

Notional residents who would live in Mirvish-Gehry would be forced to live elsewhere, say Liberty Village, in which case their commute would require them to drive or take the streetcar.

Given M-G's location, almost any subway trips originating from St. Andrew would be contra-peak, and hence not a contributor to overcrowding. Unless M-G residents somehow made massive detours to commute through Yonge and Bloor en route to Yonge and King, the net result of densification would be to alleviate transit congestion.

Regarding your comment that it's difficult to walk on this stretch "for much of the day," that's simply hyperbole.

Similarly, it's pointless to mention things like lack of school space. >90% of Mirvish-Gehry will be populated by childless singles or couples, and the few units which do house children would house infants...

 

[fedplanner]

The quality of the design plays little role in the planning process. There is nothing in the zoning which encourages good design. The use of the design review committees are a good start. I also think Peepers could be on to something. Maybe something like the "landmark" zoning provisions they have it NYC which makes it easier to build iconic buildings.

I thought I read something about landmark zoning back in the day. After posting I did a little more research. Turns out I was completely mistaken. It looks like most of NYC's landmark buildings were built in accordance with zoning rules in force at the time. The exception being the World Trade Center site, but that's technically exempt from zoning.

fedplanner regrets the error

 

[fedplanner]

You haven't seen the studies where they record the malaise brainwaves of high-density vs. low-density residents? I believe the malaise factor is something like 1.56 +- .05 with a 95% confidence interval.

Would be interested in reading more about this... link?

 

[syn]

The new wood beams look great, though I don't feel they really reference the original warehouses they're replacing. I do like that they tie into his other Toronto project at the AGO.

I have very mixed feelings about this project. Toronto has torn down far too much of it's history; I would love to see these buildings integrated and reused. An architect of Gehry's calibre should be able to accomplish that. The contrast between the old and new could be stunning.

On the other hand, history isn't just something that exists in the distant past, it's created every day. This isn't a proposal for another condo development by one of Toronto's lower tier developers; it's a once in a lifetime cultural project designed by one of the great architects of our time (and who will undoubtedly go down as one of the great architects in history). 100 years from now I think this project would have far more historical value than those warehouses, as valuable as they may be.

As for the Hume article, while I agree with some of the points the planner is making, I agree with Hume's assessment that she's being somewhat timid in her approach. You don't want to see the city simply hand over the keys to a develolper, but when you have an architect of Gehry's calibre you'd like to see the planning department have some more vision too.

 

[44 North]

Most of the studies/articles I found were on a whim and using basic keywords on Google. Regardless, the facts that point to a lower quality of life found in high densities do exist. I stumbled on one article describing this quite recently, but can't remember where. I will do better research and post them when I have the time.

and @dimunitive: The transit argument isn't "the worst reason to reject Mirvish-Gehry". The King Streetcar is a nightmare and provides terrible service, I doubt adding 10k residents - more than likely owning vehicles - on one block will help congestion. Not everyone works in the core, these buildings filled with DINKs of a similar demographic all won't work in the core, and people do travel to places other than work.

We're not Manhattan. We don't have an enormous park in our core. We don't have dozens of lines within blocks of each other. And King Street is not an 8-lane avenue. It's a narrow street that's gridlocked for a long part of the day.

 

[Lansdude]

The new wood beams look great, though I don't feel they really reference the original warehouses they're replacing. I do like that they tie into his other Toronto project at the AGO.

I have very mixed feelings about this project. Toronto has torn down far too much of it's history; I would love to see these buildings integrated and reused. An architect of Gehry's calibre should be able to accomplish that. The contrast between the old and new could be stunning.

On the other hand, history isn't just something that exists in the distant past, it's created every day. This isn't a proposal for another condo development by one of Toronto's lower tier developers; it's a once in a lifetime cultural project designed by one of the great architects of our time (and who will undoubtedly go down as one of the great architects in history). 100 years from now I think this project would have far more historical value than those warehouses, as valuable as they may be.

As for the Hume article, while I agree with some of the points the planner is making, I agree with Hume's assessment that she's being somewhat timid in her approach. You don't want to see the city simply hand over the keys to a develolper, but when you have an architect of Gehry's calibre you'd like to see the planning department have some more vision too.

I agree with this. You can make a case either way. It depends on your goals and values, depends on how you think growth should be managed with all of its attendant tradeoffs. Whatever prevails here will be, as its said, a function of power, not truth.

 

[TheTigerMaster]

The transit argument isn't "the worst reason to reject Mirvish-Gehry". The King Streetcar is a nightmare and provides terrible service, I doubt adding 10k residents - more than likely owning vehicles - on one block will help congestion

It should be noted that the 8 Relief Line will very likely be open before 10k residents move in. I believe it's scheduled to open in 2024 according to Metrolinx.