Toronto Grainger | 147.87m | 45s | Fitzrovia | Turner Fleischer

[condovo]

I'm with those who think the design seems okay but are not excited. I do think they should have gone for a bit more height here, so I really hope this seems short in a another decade. Given how we do things, however, I suppose we need to set more of a precedent for the area before we go much taller. I'll take it considering where we are right now.

Why do you want more height here?

 

[maestro]

Loves height. Nothing wrong with that. I just wish he would take a good look at google maps. A half dozen condos or more between 12 and 20 floors have been built within spitting distance of this. The Globe and Mail tower tops out at 83 metres. How can 107 metres be too short in 10 years? Looking ahead, we don't need to hear about these heights being a waste of space either.

 

[ADRM]

I feel the need to be unequivocal here: this is a prodigiously ugly design.

 

[Uptowner]

Why do you want more height here?

For me height is a means to density. It is not height, per se, that I want. I have a vision of downtown Toronto (going with roughly 17 sq km) that is home to around 600 000 people. I would like a density of over 30 000 people per square kilometre and don't see that as possible unless we maximize usage as much as we realistically can. I know that people are worried about gigantic monstrosities that eat up our lovely remaining street level architecture. I think that concerns me as much as it concerns anyone else. I just don't see it as being an insurmountable problem. In fact, under good administration, I think that allowing developers to go taller (and make more money) should mean that we can get them to apportion a greater budget to ensuring an improved streetscape.

My desire to have the density I mentioned is not one shared by everyone, I know, and this leads almost inexorably to differing views with such people on the kind of densities that we want to see approved. Sometimes I get a bit annoyed at people who want to limit development too much-the crux of the matter being defining "too much." Ultimately, I recognize that there are some people who simply don't want what I want for downtown and that's completely normal. In certain neighbourhoods I feel like NIMBYs (not intended derisively) have inertia on their side. In the scale against these forces of continuity and stolid resistance to change I just want to add my opinion to help balance things out.

 

[jozl]

What a clumsy, over-stuffed monster. People are supposed to live in this rambling pile?

 

[condovo]

For me height is a means to density. It is not height, per se, that I want. I have a vision of downtown Toronto (going with roughly 17 sq km) that is home to around 600 000 people. I would like a density of over 30 000 people per square kilometre and don't see that as possible unless we maximize usage as much as we realistically can. I know that people are worried about gigantic monstrosities that eat up our lovely remaining street level architecture. I think that concerns me as much as it concerns anyone else. I just don't see it as being an insurmountable problem. In fact, under good administration, I think that allowing developers to go taller (and make more money) should mean that we can get them to apportion a greater budget to ensuring an improved streetscape.

My desire to have the density I mentioned is not one shared by everyone, I know, and this leads almost inexorably to differing views with such people on the kind of densities that we want to see approved. Sometimes I get a bit annoyed at people who want to limit development too much-the crux of the matter being defining "too much." Ultimately, I recognize that there are some people who simply don't want what I want for downtown and that's completely normal. In certain neighbourhoods I feel like NIMBYs (not intended derisively) have inertia on their side. In the scale against these forces of continuity and stolid resistance to change I just want to add my opinion to help balance things out.

Paris is one of the most densely populated cities in the world. It is isn't a tall city (outside La Défence). Height is not the only means to a dense city. And designs like these certainly is the way to an ugly city.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Paris is one of the most densely populated cities in the world. It is isn't a tall city (outside La Défence). Height is not the only means to a dense city. And designs like these certainly is the way to an ugly city.

Well said. In fact one can argue building that tall has nothing to do with density but everything to do with perpetuating the imbalance between currently re/developable lands and the refusal to consider the massive amounts of detached housing proximate to the core as such. It's like you want Manhattan density in some areas because that would spare other areas from getting redeveloped, and I am not sure if that is healthy in the long run.

Toronto as it is currently developing right now gives one very little sense of consistency in built-form and space - it's like making up ZBL as you go on a site by site basis.

AoD

 

[Skeezix]

Well said. In fact one can argue building that tall has nothing to do with density but everything to do with perpetuating the imbalance between currently re/developable lands and the refusal to consider the massive amounts of detached housing proximate to the core as such. It's like you want Manhattan density in some areas because that would spare other areas from getting redeveloped, and I am not sure if that is healthy in the long run.

AoD

There is no "imbalance" in preserving different building typologies and neighbourhoods in the core. We don't need to park 32 storeys on this site to achieve greater densities, but we also do not need to bulldoze neighbourhoods, despite the support in some quarters of these forums for failed 1960s/1970s -era blockbusting attempts at urban development. If we want to achieve greater densities without requiring a 30+ storey tower to be perched above every heritage building, the City needs to actually stop enacting HCDs in huge swaths of the core as a means of stopping even midrise development, needs to stop pandering to NIMBYs trying to stop even townhomes near subway stations, needs to actually facilitate midrise development along the Avenues (rather than spouting hot air and doing more to frustrate it than support it), and needs to accept greater densities beyond the core, particularly near higher-level transit corridors. There is zero need to bulldoze neighbourhoods.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

There is no "imbalance" in preserving different building typologies and neighbourhoods in the core. We don't need to park 32 storeys on this site to achieve greater densities, but we also do not need to bulldoze neighbourhoods, despite the support in some quarters of these forums for failed 1960s/1970s -era blockbusting attempts at urban development. If we want to achieve greater densities without requiring a 30+ storey tower to be perched above every heritage building, the City needs to actually stop enacting HCDs in huge swaths of the core as a means of stopping even midrise development, needs to stop pandering to NIMBYs trying to stop even townhomes near subway stations, needs to actually facilitate midrise development along the Avenues (rather than spouting hot air and doing more to frustrate it than support it), and needs to accept greater densities beyond the core, particularly near higher-level transit corridors. There is zero need to bulldoze neighbourhoods.

I am not suggesting wholesale bulldozing of neighbourhoods per se - but let's face it, why do you think that there is so much demand for HCDs and NIMBYism proximate to said areas? It's is a knee-jerk reaction against even the remotest possibility of reasonable densification. In that sense of the word, everything is about reinforcing the inviolability of said neighbourhoods at the periphery. You can barely even build a 4, 6s low to mid-rise in said areas at the fringe (economics and approval process redtape are another factor) - much less in the middle of said areas - why are we surprised that cramming where it is the easiest to do so a) happens and b) is considered "great"?

But to go even further, what is so special about low-scale neighbourhoods that they represent the pinnacle of development in a rapidly growing urban region? Not everything can be preserved.

AoD

 

[Skeezix]

I am at a loss to understand how NIMBYism towards densification adjacent to a neighbourhood somehow means we need to consider wiping out that neighbourhood. I agree with you that it should be much easier to construct a midrise building along, say, Queen East or Ossington, but the problem is how this City handles planning (and why we have the OMB). The problem is not the strong, central low-rise neighbourhoods we have in this city which contribute to the richness, interest and diversity of the core.

Again, I think this perennial blaming/targeting of low density neighbourhoods in the core is simply misguided.

 

[maestro]

For me height is a means to density. It is not height, per se, that I want. I have a vision of downtown Toronto (going with roughly 17 sq km) that is home to around 600 000 people. I would like a density of over 30 000 people per square kilometre and don't see that as possible unless we maximize usage as much as we realistically can. I know that people are worried about gigantic monstrosities that eat up our lovely remaining street level architecture. I think that concerns me as much as it concerns anyone else. I just don't see it as being an insurmountable problem. In fact, under good administration, I think that allowing developers to go taller (and make more money) should mean that we can get them to apportion a greater budget to ensuring an improved streetscape.

My desire to have the density I mentioned is not one shared by everyone, I know, and this leads almost inexorably to differing views with such people on the kind of densities that we want to see approved. Sometimes I get a bit annoyed at people who want to limit development too much-the crux of the matter being defining "too much." Ultimately, I recognize that there are some people who simply don't want what I want for downtown and that's completely normal. In certain neighbourhoods I feel like NIMBYs (not intended derisively) have inertia on their side. In the scale against these forces of continuity and stolid resistance to change I just want to add my opinion to help balance things out.

Yeah I don't think downtown Toronto could handle double the population without severely affecting quality of life. Would have to bury every streetcar line in the core. There's not nearly enough open space either.


Taller does lead to more money either. I would think developers are more than happy to build a fat 30 storey slab of equal square footage to a 60 storey point tower on a mid rise podium eventhough they can charge a premium for units 60 storeys up.

 

[Uptowner]

Paris is one of the most densely populated cities in the world. It is isn't a tall city (outside La Défence). Height is not the only means to a dense city. And designs like these certainly is the way to an ugly city.

I've reconsidered the building and also think its aesthetics leave more to be desired than I did yesterday. Your point about density is one I have made many times and, as you will know, is completely consistent with my post. As you also likely know, Paris doesn't have the same lowrise detached areas near the core. Many sides streets in The Annex or Rosedale (not downtown, I know), to take but two examples, are unlikely to be redeveloped into their Parisian equivalents. This impacts potential density and must be made up in other areas to achieve densities *I* want. Whether restrictions should be as they are is not a unanimously held view, it seems.

Well said. In fact one can argue building that tall has nothing to do with density but everything to do with perpetuating the imbalance between currently re/developable lands and the refusal to consider the massive amounts of detached housing proximate to the core as such. It's like you want Manhattan density in some areas because that would spare other areas from getting redeveloped, and I am not sure if that is healthy in the long run.
AoD

It is nice to have someone of your eloquence coming down so resoundingly on my side of the discussion that building up can lead to higher densities. Your Manhattan reference is quite persuasive to my mind. In point of fact, everyone agrees with this. It's just that some people conflate different arguments and this leads them to present the wrong counter-argument to combat an idea they disagree with.

I say everyone agrees because no one thinks vaunted Paris would have it's current density if they had no buildings above 1 storey. Many people, like Maestro, simply don't share my desire for certain densities downtown. Better to simply say that, as he does, than to try and pretend that height has little to do with density in major cities in developed countries. Two people not wanting the same density needn't get mixed up with the idea that height doesn't allow for more density.

I sincerely hope that people will understand my point. Simple and rational as it is, I may belabour it on this occasion so I don't have to repeat it on the next page of this thread. Unless you think Paris, London and New York could get their densities with nothing but two-storey buildings, then you do agree that height can provide density in a way not possible in its absence. And, yes, that does mean I think that if you could magically double the height and number of units of half the residential building in Paris, and fill those new units with people while not displacing the current residents, you would have a higher density Paris. If this point is controversial for many people here it may be time for me to take a little break from this board.


TLDR,

Height matters to density and we ain't never gonna be no Paris.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

It is nice to have someone of your eloquence coming down so resoundingly on my side of the discussion that building up can lead to higher densities. Your Manhattan reference is quite persuasive to my mind. In point of fact, everyone agrees with this. It's just that some people conflate different arguments and this leads them to present the wrong counter-argument to combat an idea they disagree with.

I say everyone agrees because no one thinks vaunted Paris would have it's current density if they had no buildings above 1 storey. Many people, like Maestro, simply don't share my desire for certain densities downtown. Better to simply say that, as he does, than to try and pretend that height has little to do with density in major cities in developed countries. Two people not wanting the same density needn't get mixed up with the idea that height doesn't allow for more density.

I sincerely hope that people will understand my point. Simple and rational as it is, I may belabour it on this occasion so I don't have to repeat it on the next page of this thread. Unless you think Paris, London and New York could get their densities with nothing but two-storey buildings, then you do agree that height can provide density in a way not possible in its absence. And, yes, that does mean I think that if you could magically double the height and number of units of half the residential building in Paris, and fill those new units with people while not displacing the current residents, you would have a higher density Paris. If this point is controversial for many people here it may be time for me to take a little break from this board.
TLDR,

Height matters to density and we ain't never gonna be no Paris.

Err not quite, Manhattan is dense not just because it is just towers everywhere (because it isn't) - but that the base level of density is higher than what we have to start off with.
http://www.radicalcartography.net/index.html?manhattan-heights

http://radicalcartography.net/index.html?manhattan-heights

You know, the light pink that you see making up the majority of the map? Those are mid-rise walkups - the default built form. This is what it looks like (in Harlem):

AoD

 

[Uptowner]

Err not quite, Manhattan is dense not just because it is just towers everywhere - but that the base level of density is higher than what we have to start off with - i.e. mid-rise walkup is the default built form.
AoD

Yet another prominent voice on this website proclaiming New York couldn't have its current density with only two-storey buildings and that height therefore matters. Also, I agree New York's density is not only because "it is just towers everywhere." It always befuddles me that anyone could actually think this way.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Yet another prominent voice on this website proclaiming New York couldn't have its current density with only two-storey buildings and that height therefore matters. Also, I agree New York's density is not only because "it is just towers everywhere." It always befuddles me that anyone could actually think this way.

Except that talking about height alone is meaningless - how high, how prevalant, and where? Supporting higher density doesn't mean supporting the built form that is this particular proposal. That is the crux of the issue. Toronto as a growing city right now is like one that is trying to run before it can even walk.

AoD