Toronto Nahid on Broadview | 25.45m | 6s | Nahid Corporation | Options

[GabrielHurl]

Crane came down on Saturday

 

[flonicky]

 

[flonicky]

The older and much taller buildings further away from Broadview TTC station -- sitting behind a "2024 new build SIX (6) storey" -- will never stop being a sadly hilarious example of how layers upon layers of flawed / pandering policy has contributed to Toronto's Housing Crisis...

I had to put feet on the ground to get a sense of the reality of the discussion on the previous page.

Here's the new 6 storey condo with one of the taller, older buildings in behind. I think it's about 20-21 stories. Just how sad is this contrast?

In the case of Broadview, the row of highrises up towards Mortimer largely cut off the view for everyone else, no access to the valley was added, not one public lookout, the buildings also had a relatively poor relationship to the street and no retail or other animation at-grade.

Here's the building in the rear, one half of a pair of vintage "towers in the park". Or, in this case, "towers in the parking lot." The space between these buildings -- and you'll have to excuse me for using technical jargon -- is known in the various city-building professions as a "nightmarish hellscape." When you stand in the middle of the space in the photo, it's pretty damn bleak. I got vertigo. There's even more surface parking on the other side of the building on the right.

Here's the kicker: these buildings may be tall, but they don't provide much meaningful density. More than half of the site is surface parking (and some oddly-shaped, unusual patches of lawn) despite the inclusion of .... underground parking!

There's no lookout or public access to the valley, but there is this swimming pool. Cronenberg missed out when he filmed Shivers in Montreal instead of this freaky pool.

Is Nahid a "sad example"? Because it fills its entire site, Nahid is more dense than these towers. You could comfortably fit 10-11 Nahids on the 'towers in the park' site which would give you roughly 60 stories of living space vs 42 split between the two towers. Nahid could have been taller but it still represents progress because it contributes to healthy urban fabric by increasing the diversity of housing types in the area, increasing the amount of housing by the subway station, setting a pretty good precedent for the rest of Broadview and contributing to a comfortable streetwall.

It's just too bad it's going to look like West Beach.

Now, if you want to complain about something, 'towers in the park' are still being built in the suburbs and the regions. Or maybe, when viewed through a single-issue activist lens, those buildings are okay because they're "tall".

 

[HousingNowTO]

I had to put feet on the ground to get a sense of the reality of the discussion on the previous page.

Here's the new 6 storey condo with one of the taller, older buildings in behind. I think it's about 20-21 stories. Just how sad is this contrast?

View attachment 553673



Here's the building in the rear, one half of a pair of vintage "towers in the park". Or, in this case, "towers in the parking lot." The space between these buildings -- and you'll have to excuse me for using technical jargon -- is known in the various city-building professions as a "nightmarish hellscape." When you stand in the middle of the space in the photo, it's pretty damn bleak. I got vertigo. There's even more surface parking on the other side of the building on the right.

View attachment 553674

Here's the kicker: these buildings may be tall, but they don't provide much meaningful density. More than half of the site is surface parking (and some oddly-shaped, unusual patches of lawn) despite the inclusion of .... underground parking!

View attachment 553675

There's no lookout or public access to the valley, but there is this swimming pool. Cronenberg missed out when he filmed Shivers in Montreal instead of this freaky pool.

View attachment 553676

Is Nahid a "sad example"? Because it fills its entire site, Nahid is more dense than these towers. You could comfortably fit 10-11 Nahids on the 'towers in the park' site which would give you roughly 60 stories of living space vs 42 split between the two towers. Nahid could have been taller but it still represents progress because it contributes to healthy urban fabric by increasing the diversity of housing types in the area, increasing the amount of housing by the subway station, setting a pretty good precedent for the rest of Broadview and contributing to a comfortable streetwall.

It's just too bad it's going to look like West Beach.

Now, if you want to complain about something, 'towers in the park' are still being built in the suburbs and the regions. Or maybe, when viewed through a single-issue activist lens, those buildings are okay because they're "tall".

From our POV - Nahid should have been minimum 2x or 3x taller, what it represents is Toronto's calcified legacy of minor, incremental progress delivered at a glacier-like pace.

In 2024, 6-storeys sets a terrible precedent for the rest of Broadview, as did the whole Broadview plan in proximity to the TTC station over the last decade.

Deference to "a comfortable streetwall" is an aesthetic at 796 BROADVIEW that results in a very-high per unit cost --- and excludes any opportunity for any kind of on-site affordable units.

By 2040 - it will be a good stop on our HNTO "What the hell were we thinking 20 years ago??" tour of missed opportunities.

In the spirt of cooperation, I will take the description of our "single-issue activist lens" as a good thing... as it it currently the biggest single issue being discussed at all 3-levels of government in Canada.

 

[Northern Light]

From our POV - Nahid should have been minimum 2x or 3x taller, what it represents is Toronto's calcified legacy of minor, incremental progress delivered at a glacier-like pace.

In 2024, 6-storeys sets a terrible precedent for the rest of Broadview, as did the whole Broadview plan in proximity to the TTC station over the last decade.

Deference to "a comfortable streetwall" is an aesthetic at 796 BROADVIEW that results in a very-high per unit cost --- and excludes any opportunity for any kind of on-site affordable units.

By 2040 - it will be a good stop on our HNTO "What the hell were we thinking 20 years ago??" tour of missed opportunities.

In the spirt of cooperation, I will take the description of our "single-issue activist lens" as a good thing... as it it currently the biggest single issue being discussed at all 3-levels of government in Canada.

We will disagree here, as we do.

Because I think that lens applied here, results in such strong push back that all development and housing is killed for another generation.

Its certainly possible to achieve more density in this area, and more height, but not as a street wall against Broadview, or blocking off the valley.

The view that its all or nothing, will generally get you nothing.

The thing here is getting better use of the Green P lot on Erindale.

Its getting the already approved density/height on Broadview to go forward, where most of it is stagnant for varying reasons.

Its getting the Green P site on Danforth to have even a 4-storey build (if the site weren't enlarged); and looking at the 1-storey Shoppers Drug Mart and LCBO

Its looking at the Loblaws site south of the intersection now on hold for possibly the next 7 years or more years.........all because they proposed something with small'ish but important errors. That's a shame the design had real potential. (its still buildable now, but the choice to invest miillions in rebranding it will ensure it sits for awhile) .

 

[Undead]

I do think disdain for for towers in the park is overblown. If the space around the tower is nicely landscaped, it provides a welcome contribution to the public realm. Certainly better than a forest of towers with minimal separation distances.

In fact, I'd argue site porosity is often the bigger issue for these sites.

Granted, many of these towers have unappealing landscaping; or just a lack of any landscaping, like in flonicky's example. But contemporary buildings are also often pretty crap when it comes to public realm.

As for density, they usually range between 25,000 and 40,000 people per square kilometre--perfectly acceptable.

 

[flonicky]

In the spirt of cooperation, I will take the description of our "single-issue activist lens" as a good thing... as it it currently the biggest single issue being discussed at all 3-levels of government in Canada.

You should take it as "descriptive" because it comes with benefits and drawbacks. These issues have been neglected for decades and there's a need for some unreasonable people to make some noise. But as someone who enjoys the qualities of urban life, the blunt force arguments wear me out.

 

[TwinHuey]

It's a full time job trying to keep up with @flonicky

April 6

 

[flonicky]

I like how your photos support both sides of the earlier discussion: the slab towers are horrible and Nahid could easily have been taller (which I wasn't opposed to).

You don't have to keep up, I take photos for relaxation and I don't have to worry about airspace rules!

 

[TwinHuey]

Like you, I take photos for fun and I shoot projects that tweak my curiousity.

We happened to be driving by for the first time a few days ago and my girlfriend noticed the construction and asked me how high it was going to be. No idea. I’m still a rookie at UT, otherwise I would have realized no crane, so likely no higher.

I was not following this thread and being curious, I looked up the Nahid on Broadview. There you were again! .

Reading all the posts, I really wanted to see the aerial perspective and today was a perfect day to fly the drone.

I think the combination of your photos from Thursday and the aerial shots from today gives, as you say, a really true sense of the reality of the discussion on this thread.

 

[Northern Light]

I do think disdain for for towers in the park is overblown. If the space around the tower is nicely landscaped, it provides a welcome contribution to the public realm. Certainly better than a forest of towers with minimal separation distances.

Nuance is the key. There are multiple trade-offs and they vary by site.

Shadow (how much, what of?)

Wind (straight-line height w/o a podium is a much higher risk of unpleasant or dangerous wind conditions at ground level, which setbacks help break up)

If the 'park' is parking, that certainly isn't much of a benefit; but then there's also the issue of landscaping being fenced off, sometimes even from the residents of the buildings, poorly maintained, and lacking seating or nightime illumination.

Almost anything can be done well, almost everything has been done badly.

Understanding the multiple trade-offs and negotiating them out in good faith is key.

It doesn't have to take months or years.

Typically, when I intervene of my own volition, or at the request of another party, I resolve it in hours. or at most a day or two.

I don't mean to over-sell myself here at all. I think many parties on all sides simply show up locked into their goals w/o asking how those can be achieved while addressing the concerns/needs of others.

It really isn't that hard, normally.

In fact, I'd argue site porosity is often the bigger issue for these sites.

Absolutely, as per above. A tower next to a public park (non-strata), and not in perpetual shadow, is much more sell-able than private, fenced-off landscaping.

But you have to think carefully about how to achieve that. The obvious thing is to put the 'park' at the extreme south of the site, to keep it out of shadow; though this would block any development to the south of said site.

You can put the park between two slabs, if the slabs are oriented north-south, instead of east-west.

But you will block someone's view of a sunset, which may be an entirely justifiable trade, but you have to sell it.

If one is next to an existing park, or a natural feature such as a ravine, it generally makes sense to put the 'park' next to same.

But then you need to consider all those other factors.

One development can't be treated in isolation. Build 'x' to 30 storeys as a slab and you may freeze out the neighbouring sites from any development at all.

Everyone needs to back away from absolutes, and think about end goals that can work for most people, most of the time.

As for density, they usually range between 25,000 and 40,000 people per square kilometre--perfectly acceptable.

St. Jamestown is regularly derided for being too dense; depending on how one calculates it (where does one draw the proverbial lines), the density there is ~28,000 per km2

I would find it difficult in light of that to support 40,000per km2, which is very high by global standards.

 

[Undead]

@flonicky Again, what's so horrible about tower in the park slabs? Another point in their favour which I didn't mention in my previous post is that they often have much better unit layouts than point towers.

St. Jamestown is regularly derided for being too dense; depending on how one calculates it (where does one draw the proverbial lines), the density there is ~28,000 per km2

I would find it difficult in light of that to support 40,000per km2, which is very high by global standards.

That's exactly my point. Towers in the park provide plenty of density, even though people often wrongly claim they don't.

is much more sell-able than private, fenced-off landscaping.

Do you mean for developers or end users? I think many from the later group would actually prefer to be fenced off from the "riff-raff." I meant that it's worse from an urbanist perspective.

 

[flonicky]

Reading all the posts, I really wanted to see the aerial perspective and today was a perfect day to fly the drone.

The cool thing about the drones photos is that it's still a really new thing. Aerial photography has been somewhat limited in the past and there's never been an accessible way to get good coverage of individual projects like this. This is a new way of seeing the city and its form and as the first of their type, they'll be referenced for many years.

 

[flonicky]

@flonicky Again, what's so horrible about tower in the park slabs? Another point in their favour which I didn't mention in my previous post is that they often have much better unit layouts than point towers.

Here's the best case example--as you describe it--that I can think of. It's at Sentinel and Fountainhead in North York. Literally towers in a park. The grounds are beautiful, there's access to nature trails (on left), there's transit, etc.

But look at that surface parking? You're still relying on a car to travel. Don't even think about aging in place because once you can't drive, you can't walk to anything. That beautiful park isn't so beautiful for six months of the year. How much does it cost to service those lots compared to something more compact? Unit size is a feature of the era they were built in. And you're living above the park, you're not living with the park. And these are rare. Most slabs in this city are surrounded by treeless lawns and parking.

I like walking and anytime I've lived in suburbia, I have not enjoyed it.

 

[Undead]

I don't disagree, but none of that is inherent to slabs. Poor walkability, crap parks, bad transit, high parking ratios and iffy design are common to modern point towers in suburban locations. And some of those issues also manifest even in fairly urbanized areas.

As for aging in place, anecdotally I see many seniors aging in place in slab style towers.

Unit size is a feature of the era they were built in.

Respectfully, that's not a good argument! So, what, one just shrugs and says "oh, well, things are shite today, that's just how it is"? We can do better.

As NL alluded to, it's more about making an effort and executing something well, whether it's a point or slab tower.