Toronto Market Wharf | 110.33m | 33s | Context Development | a—A

Funny you say that, since I've never met anyone who doesn't think the St. Lawrence Neighbourhood is a beautiful location. Hardly fugly if you ask me or anyone, really.
 
Well where I took this photo from is hardly attractive for example. And there's some rather featureless street furniture and concrete around here--needs a ton more greenery, beautiful Canadian maple wood street furniture and redone sidewalks. Vancouver for example gets these details right.
 
It's an incredibly odd comment, the other side of the street has relatively mature trees, particularly by Toronto standards. Secondly there's a giant park just east of the building.
Thirdly a couple pages back, the reason no trees were planted right beside the building is apparently there's something underneath the concrete and they can't dig there.
 
I will agree however that Vancouver does streetscaping (and overall pedestrian experience) far better than Toronto.
 
SP!RE said:
I will agree however that Vancouver does streetscaping (and overall pedestrian experience) far better than Toronto.
Click to expand...

Agreed on the whole, there are some exceptions where Toronto has done a great job, this waterfront area being one. Recalling Vancouver, I'll say this area is unparalleled there, though they come close. But I didn't see the quality I saw here (i.e. sugar beach -> sherborne park ... that area as a whole).

But for example, they have many many cityplace like developments / buildings, and the streetscaping they do on them is amazing compared to us on a whole. Tons of water features there too, maybe it's understandable we don't have that but still ...

There are more nice examples in Toronto though but they're very rare.

But one other thing, though they just redid a major street, there main arteries aren't much better I find, it's the side streets with the residential developments that are.
 
urbandreamer said:
Well where I took this photo from is hardly attractive for example. And there's some rather featureless street furniture and concrete around here--needs a ton more greenery, beautiful Canadian maple wood street furniture and redone sidewalks.
Click to expand...

Are you familiar with Toronto?
 
Saturday December 17, 2011

IMG00917-20111217-1158.jpg
 

Attachments

  • IMG00917-20111217-1158.jpg
    IMG00917-20111217-1158.jpg
    45.2 KB · Views: 461
urbandreamer said:
Well where I took this photo from is hardly attractive for example. And there's some rather featureless street furniture and concrete around here--needs a ton more greenery, beautiful Canadian maple wood street furniture and redone sidewalks. Vancouver for example gets these details right.
Click to expand...

You do seem to have an odd view of our City but may be pleased to hear that part of the Section 37 funds from this building are going towards streetscape improvements on Lower Jarvis. Obviously these will not happen until the construction is finished. The street is a main traffic artery so will never be 'beautiful' - it should, however, get better.

"prior to the issuance of the first above-grade building permit for Building B, the owner is to pay to the City the sum of $1,000,000.00 for public art, which could be used to improve the pedestrian environment along Lower Jarvis Street between Front Street East and Lake Shore Boulevard East, including potential enhancements to the canopy along Lower Jarvis Street, the CN underpass and the St. Lawrence Market colonnade, subject to the public art process;
c. prior to the issuance of the first above-grade building permit for Building B, the owner is pay to the City the sum of $400,000 for the purposes of streetscaping improvements on Lower Jarvis Street not abutting the property"
 
There should be a law that all podiums, or the first five-ten floors of any new project, be clad in materials other than steel and/or concrete. Brick, Limestone or Granite should be standard.

I'm tired of walking by new buildings (Ritz, Lumiere) and having it feel like they are made out of plastic snap-and-go Playmobil pieces...
 
To me, the St. Lawrence Market neighbourhood is a great area to live despite a few mediocre (read: not bad) 80's buildings in the area. The only negative I can think of for Market Wharf is it's proximity to the train tracks to the south, but that's not a big deal. For a whole lot of reasons and personal preferences this is one of perhaps five or six buildings I would consider buying into if I was in the market to buy right now. This is a dynamite project in a vibrant, well planned, historic and highly desirable nabe.
 
This one is certainly transforming into something special. The quality of materials used is really showing this one off.
A couple things make me uncomfortable though.

I was very disappointed that the local nimbies were able to force the height of this tower downward. In the end, what did they actually accomplish? A tall building will still be on that site. The rest of the city gets to look at an interesting designed building that would have looked far far better at its original intended height.

Lower Jarvis street is a disaster area, traffic wise. This has always been a fast moving, noisy corrider to and from the Lakeshore/Gardner. It detracts from the neighbourhood and and this new addition. Now it has that southbound merge lane situation. This has been going on now for a very long time. Has it been a a couple years? It sure seems like it. I can't recall when I have seen any activity whatsoever at that construction site at the bridge. With the pace of the progress going on, I suspect it will stay like this for a very long time. This really is a detriment to a neighborhood and a brand new condominium that deserve better treatment.
 
Granny said:
I was very disappointed that the local nimbies were able to force the height of this tower downward. In the end, what did they actually accomplish? A tall building will still be on that site. The rest of the city gets to look at an interesting designed building that would have looked far far better at its original intended height.
Click to expand...

It's really easy to disparage the residents who actually live in the area, but you do so at the risk of not understanding the issue of allowing certain kinds of development. Ontario suffers under a system wherein height precedents are set by prior development. What this means is that if or when the city allows a building of a certain height as an exception, there is a great risk that a subsequent developer will then demand for the same height at a nearby location. If they don't get it, they run to the OMB in order to get city planning decisions overturned. Many residents now understand that developers are increasingly controlling the planning process because they have both the money and the OMB to determine what gets built. So insult the "nimbies" as you call them all you want, but they are pushing back for what they believe is reasonable, and there is nothing remotely unreasonable about a 33 floor building.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top