neubilder
Banned
Honest Ed's will certainly soon be redeveloped, but it's no place for skyscrapers.
Signing off, once and for all. Been nice knowing some of you.
Signing off, once and for all. Been nice knowing some of you.
Toronto Forma | 308m | 84s | Great Gulf | Gehry Partners
- Thread starter golodhendil
- Start date
sixrings
Senior Member
Torontovibe
Senior Member
I hope you're wrong, I like that store.
kris
Senior Member
where are you going????????????
the sweat prince has to say goodnight
hes off to a better place
adma
Superstar
Did I suggest that skyscrapers would be part of the Honest Ed's deal? Even David Mirvish would know that that notion'd go over like a lead balloon this close to the epicentre of Jane Jacobs-land--I wasn't offering that the present scheme would be transferred wholesale to the Honest Ed's site; just that Mirvish might, in the end, opt to build here rather than there.
Losing the condo megatalls would only sadden skyscraper-obsessed pubescents.
Bogtrotter
Senior Member
That would be a good spot for a contemporary gallery, on a subway stop and down the road from the shoe museum. Actually I wish MOCCA and Mirvish would consolidate their collections and create a notable Contemporary art gallery, but I suppose that is just daydreaming. Losing the so-called condo 'sculptures' is not a major issue, although I like the idea of the Gehry towers as I do think that Toronto could do with more interesting condo designs- we are a condo city afterall. What irks me is that large mediochre and bottom line projects like Aura and 10 York pass with little resistence but when something remotely audacious comes up the locals bring out the pitchforks in rage at the impudent developers.
Last edited:
adma
Superstar
I think re "pitchforks", it's less a matter of what's proposed than what's being replaced. For all their questionable design (or not), Aura and 10 York replaced parking lots. If Gehry/Mirvish were proposed for a similarly tabula rasa site, or something free of heritage-esque attributes, you'd find a lot less outcry--and maybe even outright embrace by some of those presently wielding said pitchforks.
Really: it isn't about the high-rises. It *would be* for the Honest Ed's site, obviously--though I could picture a semi-high-rise solution there, a la the New Museum on Bowery...
Peepers
Banned
The CBC interviewed Adam Vaughan at the site of this project discussing development in the area in general. Vaughan was very negative throughout the interview saying he was against tall buildings. He cited Shangri-la, RBC-Ritz and Tiff as examples of "mistakes". He said west of Spadina where recently approved buildings are around 11 storey's in height the city is "getting it right". I take it from his comments that if he had is way nothing in his ward would be taller than 11 stories.
http://www.cbc.ca/player/AudioMobile/Metro … Morning/ID/2295020901/
http://www.cbc.ca/player/AudioMobile/Metro … Morning/ID/2295020901/
urbandreamer
recession proof
I think Toronto is finally becoming good at building attractive midrises, so I agree with him. Highrises? Not so much. Tableau & PSC & Bisha & Picasso & Theatre Park are of course good examples of highrises, but many in the area are rather tedious. Besides, AV is doing developers a favour--by not supporting this project he's keeping established Toronto players happy by delaying a large new competitor from eating into their sales in a slow market.
11s will be the new norm moving forward imo--if the slowdown continues.
11s will be the new norm moving forward imo--if the slowdown continues.
brockm
Active Member
Adam Vaughn is a clown. I live in his ward and wouldn't vote for him if a gun were held to my head.
Hanlansboy
Active Member
Yeah, don't get me started on him, how is it the ones completely clueless and arrogant are in charge, and those in the know are at the side line, should be the other way around. If it were up to him, and his colleague Kristin Wong Tam, who combined, control most of downtown, there'd be nothing over a few stories, and there would be no skyscrapers, why? To me, it's what helps define a cities strength, power, and progress, guess they want Toronto to stat in the 70's? How do they get elected, I'm in Wong-Tams riding, I can tell you, I didn't, nor shall I ever, vote for little miss "it will cause to much shadowing" (her usual idiotic reason not to approve every tall tower, it's downtown, DUH, there is supposed to be skyscrapers here, you just can't fix stupid!),
SP!RE
°°°°°°
Wong-Tam and Vaughan are two of the very best councillors we've got, and for a long list of reasons. If you guys are this set against them because they listen to the people who live in their wards/neighbourhoods and care about shadowing/issues of midrises vs. highrises, then I get the impression you have some very odd priorities.
"I want more unsustainable towers everywhere!!!111"(Skyscraper fanboys)
vs.
"Let's have a measured discussion of what types of buildings are appropriate in which locations and listen to everyone who has to live in the area around them" (good urban planners, councillors, city builders with foresight)
...I think I'll side with the latter. I love me a good tall building, in fact I love them. But maximum height and maximum development are not always appropriate for every location in a city and need to be considered very carefully. Tall buildings have a big, long-term impact, sustainability being a major one.
"I want more unsustainable towers everywhere!!!111"(Skyscraper fanboys)
vs.
"Let's have a measured discussion of what types of buildings are appropriate in which locations and listen to everyone who has to live in the area around them" (good urban planners, councillors, city builders with foresight)
...I think I'll side with the latter. I love me a good tall building, in fact I love them. But maximum height and maximum development are not always appropriate for every location in a city and need to be considered very carefully. Tall buildings have a big, long-term impact, sustainability being a major one.
Last edited by a moderator:
innsertnamehere
Superstar
Well if there is any place for towers like these, this is the place. This is a 250 meter walk from one of the largest transit centres in North America, which includes a direct link to the airport by 2015, a major regional bus terminal, an inter-city rail terminal, 2 subway lines, 7 GO regional rail line terminals, a major regional bus terminal, a free-way directly to the south, the possibility of a future intercity bus terminal (45 bay), as well as a third subway line. (DRL) if this isn't the place to build two 326m buildings, a convention centre, casino, mall, and mega-hotel, I don't know what is.
Last edited:
SP!RE
°°°°°°
Have you met Wong-Tam? She's lovely to be around, not remotely arrogant. Always respectful and listens to people, and when given credit tends to pass the credit on to someone else instead of basking in it herself. She doesn't know me well so I'm nobody to her per se, yet she was always so graceful and fun to be around the times I was working in her presence.
As for cluelessness, your understanding of how good cities are built leaves me thinking that you're the clueless one. Have you any familiarity with the different types of planning that goes into a city or are you just interested in seeing more of the same go up on our skyline?
(Cue "NIMBY" name-calling even though I myself do love tall buildings, and midrises, and big cities.)
Last edited:
SP!RE
°°°°°°
You're oversimplifying things.
1) The city will undoubtedly have the developer construct large amounts of vehicular parking here.
2) Most people moving here will have money, and will have cars they bring with them. Many will not work downtown and will not use transit to get around.
3) The DRL is still a theoretical proposition that is very far away, if it's going to happen at all. We should not be building extravagantly until we have better transit ALREADY in place. You can't have your cake till you have your vegetables. Toronto is not London or Paris; we simply do not have the transit systems in place.
4) There are PLENTY of issues outside of transit that apply to this development. Market sustainability, environmental sustainability, public realm, as well as the OPINIONS of the people in the city. (What a concept.) A development of this scale, among all the other developments that are going up, have MASSIVE, long-term effects on our city's demographics, affordability, and public space, and need to be carefully considered. This sucks for people who just want more height and developments in their city but it's just the way things have to be done to create a good city for everyone to live in.
Last edited: