Toronto Neon Condos | 49.98m | 20s | Pemberton | Graziani + Corazza

Patrick Smyth said:
The OP makes no comment on such matters. It's not that kind of document. I mention 'towers-in-the-park' by way of comparing how much open space they allowed for. Whereas the current penchant for 'Tall Buildings' is swallowing-up open space and abusing the public realm, sometimes as offensively as the NEON. I see the direct link between open space and quality of life. Do you agree? How important is open space for you? Regardless of the magnitude or extent of intensification there must be a good and comprehensive public realm outcome. That didn't happen with the NEON. It was as if the planners had gone blind! It will be a great example of bad planning for a very long time.
Click to expand...

I know it doesn't. I was just being facetious. Of course, this document is the relevant one (and please note the first graphic on the top of page 9).

On the question of "open space", I agree and I disagree. While I think that open space, in the form of parks, public squares and wide sidewalks are incredibly important to ensuring a healthy public realm, I don't think that the open spaces created by towers-in-a-park contribute a positive effect because they are typically narrow strips of grass suitable for little more than dog walkers. They totally deaden the street and make the pedestrian experience a dreary, sterile and windswept one. They are the height of suburban thinking and are a totally discredited vestige of '50s and '60s planning principles. This blogger describes the 21st century's revulsion to them better than I could.

So I don't mean any offense, but if your idea of good planning with respect to the public realm is "towers in a park", then I'm not so sure you're as much of a planning heavyweight as you fancy yourself.
 
Last edited:
So Patrick, if I can distill your central point from all your perorations, it's "the height of NEON is ok, but I wish it were stepped back more and had wider sidewalks"?
 
Wow, Patrick, Im stunned...really? You think that 500 duplex has some positives? I will have to completely disagree with you on that. I never liked walking that block, even as a kid, it was extremely windy, the land was not taken care of properly, they had an outdoor/indoor pool in the middle of a concrete mess. There was no way to use or interact with the green space, of which there was little, and mostly it was just exits from the parking garage that was used by us kids smoking the mary jane back in the day. No one used the lands there is my point. It was NEVER used by anyone. I would much prefer packing the people in where possible, follwing the OP for midrises on the rest of yonge, avenue, mt pleasant etc.. and leaving other lands as an urban oasis, a la central park in Manhatten. Seems to work well for their quality of life.
 
Ramako said:
I know it doesn't. I was just being facetious. Of course, this document is the relevant one (and please note the first graphic on the top of page 9).

On the question of "open space", I agree and I disagree. While I think that open space, in the form of parks, public squares and wide sidewalks are incredibly important to ensuring a healthy public realm, I don't think that the open spaces created by towers-in-a-park contribute a positive effect because they are typically narrow strips of grass suitable for little more than dog walkers. They totally deaden the street and make the pedestrian experience a dreary, sterile and windswept one. They are the height of suburban thinking and are a totally discredited vestige of '50s and '60s planning principles. This blogger describes the 21st century's revulsion to them better than I could.

So I don't mean any offense, but if your idea of good planning with respect to the public realm is "towers in a park", then I'm not so sure you're as much of a planning heavyweight as you fancy yourself.
Click to expand...

"I was just being facetious." Really?

The 'towers-in-the-park' and the open space at ground level was acknowledgement that concreting-over every bit of open space was not a good idea. I would have applauded that effort back when it was in vogue with planners. And, I'm happy they exist today for it at least gives us a chance to consolidate and connect open spaces to improve the overall public realm. The current trend of 'Tall Buildings' is leaving nothing to spare. At least the towers have somewhere for a dog to pee, or a smoker to walk on some grass. I reckon every 'Tall Building' being built today will house about 30/40 dogs. Where will they go for a pee - on the sidewalk or against the building? The OP and Secondary Plans talk about the creation of 'street parks' and improvements to the public realm. 'Street parks' can be created by connecting those various narrow strips. At any development proposal stage planners should consider how best to incorporate them into the public realm. The area north of Eglinton, east of Yonge, is notoriously short of paths or lanes through the blocks of buildings. So much so, if you live on Roehampton and wish to get to Eglinton you have a bit of a hike in front of you. With some decent planning, and modifications to the base of 'Tall Buildings', much can be done to improve the quality of life which, as you agree, is hugely dependant on the amount of open space. You're right, I'm no heavyweight when it comes to planning.
 
Patrick Smyth said:
"I was just being facetious." Really?
Click to expand...

Yeah, really. The whole premise of my argument is that modern planning eschews the idea of towers-in-the-park, so of course it would be inherently absurd of me to suggest that the OP (or any Secondary Plans, Design Criteria, or other documents not technically a part of but supplemental to the OP) considers towers-in-the-park to be good planning. I was making light of the fact that, despite your apparent reverence for the OP et al. as holy gospel, your apparent approval of 500 Duplex is contrary to what is typically considered good planning in those documents. Clearly my point didn't come across.

Patrick Smyth said:
The 'towers-in-the-park' and the open space at ground level was acknowledgement that concreting-over every bit of open space was not a good idea. I would have applauded that effort back when it was in vogue with planners. And, I'm happy they exist today for it at least gives us a chance to consolidate and connect open spaces to improve the overall public realm. The current trend of 'Tall Buildings' is leaving nothing to spare. At least the towers have somewhere for a dog to pee, or a smoker to walk on some grass. I reckon every 'Tall Building' being built today will house about 30/40 dogs. Where will they go for a pee - on the sidewalk or against the building? The OP and Secondary Plans talk about the creation of 'street parks' and improvements to the public realm. 'Street parks' can be created by connecting those various narrow strips. At any development proposal stage planners should consider how best to incorporate them into the public realm. The area north of Eglinton, east of Yonge, is notoriously short of paths or lanes through the blocks of buildings. So much so, if you live on Roehampton and wish to get to Eglinton you have a bit of a hike in front of you. With some decent planning, and modifications to the base of 'Tall Buildings', much can be done to improve the quality of life which, as you agree, is hugely dependant on the amount of open space. You're right, I'm no heavyweight when it comes to planning.
Click to expand...

I agree that mid-block connections are important to the pedestrian realm, and developments should absolutely do their best to integrate them, but such connections don't necessarily need to follow any particular form. There are many examples of great mid-block connections that aren't some kind of psuedo-parkland, one such example being the now on-hold Context proposal on King West (there are also a few great ones in Yorkville). I also agree that people need places to walk their dog or throw a ball around (as a former smoker I can tell you that smokers don't particularly give a damn if they have grass to stand on while they smoke, so long as it's not freezing out), but I think that this should be achieved with park space, and I mean real public park space, not uninviting, unused, dirty, windswept, strips of grass between tower loading bays. I'd absolutely support a proposal to expropriate the land and turn this lot into a public park before I'd support a proposal for a 500 Duplex-style tower-in-the-park concept here.
 
Tulse said:
So Patrick, if I can distill your central point from all your perorations, it's "the height of NEON is ok, but I wish it were stepped back more and had wider sidewalks"?
Click to expand...

There's a whole lot more wrong with the NEON. The worst was the condo assuming part of the public realm and the sidewalk not being improved to account for the increased traffic and diminished public safety. Things I'd expect to be on the top of the TO Community Planning Dept's list of items to consider when approving such a huge increase in density. The site has gone from an allowed density of 1 times to over 11 times. That amounts to a fantastic release of profit. Shouldn't we expect more to be negotiated for the common good?
 
mckarisma said:
Wow, Patrick, Im stunned...really? You think that 500 duplex has some positives? I will have to completely disagree with you on that. I never liked walking that block, even as a kid, it was extremely windy, the land was not taken care of properly, they had an outdoor/indoor pool in the middle of a concrete mess. There was no way to use or interact with the green space, of which there was little, and mostly it was just exits from the parking garage that was used by us kids smoking the mary jane back in the day. No one used the lands there is my point. It was NEVER used by anyone. I would much prefer packing the people in where possible, follwing the OP for midrises on the rest of yonge, avenue, mt pleasant etc.. and leaving other lands as an urban oasis, a la central park in Manhatten. Seems to work well for their quality of life.
Click to expand...

Over buildings that leave no open space, do nothing for the public realm and diminish public safety? Yes. I'm not a fan of packing 'em in. Density can be achieved in ways other than concreting-over open space. It might mean some creative thinking, political will and standing up to developers who will suffer reduced profit but TO did that before and stopped the craziness of the early 1970s. The way things are going, there's a serious risk of destabilization in the YE area - if all we're doing is creating a condo bubble and leaving less and less open space. The area needs the Midtown Plan as shown here - www.midtownplan.ca. We need Consolidation of the Public Realm as we Intensify the Private Realm.
 
Ramako said:
Yeah, really. The whole premise of my argument is that modern planning eschews the idea of towers-in-the-park, so of course it would be inherently absurd of me to suggest that the OP (or any Secondary Plans, Design Criteria, or other documents not technically a part of but supplemental to the OP) considers towers-in-the-park to be good planning. I was making light of the fact that, despite your apparent reverence for the OP et al. as holy gospel, your apparent approval of 500 Duplex is contrary to what is typically considered good planning in those documents. Clearly my point didn't come across.



I agree that mid-block connections are important to the pedestrian realm, and developments should absolutely do their best to integrate them, but such connections don't necessarily need to follow any particular form. There are many examples of great mid-block connections that aren't some kind of psuedo-parkland, one such example being the now on-hold Context proposal on King West (there are also a few great ones in Yorkville). I also agree that people need places to walk their dog or throw a ball around (as a former smoker I can tell you that smokers don't particularly give a damn if they have grass to stand on while they smoke, so long as it's not freezing out), but I think that this should be achieved with park space, and I mean real public park space, not uninviting, unused, dirty, windswept, strips of grass between tower loading bays. I'd absolutely support a proposal to expropriate the land and turn this lot into a public park before I'd support a proposal for a 500 Duplex-style tower-in-the-park concept here.
Click to expand...

Your point did not come across. (Better give me a heads-up next time you do that fancy writing.) I value the open space at 500 Duplex. Across Yonge, the TIPs will give us a chance at a 'street park', so all is not lost. I don't revere the OP either and see it only as a guideline - but one which seems to have been rendered virtually useless as soon as it was born. The blame for that I place squarely at the feet of councillors who act like they are planners and Staff Planners who act unprofessionally. Midtown Toronto is very different from either North York or Old Toronto. It requires a planning regimen that caters for the differences. Currently, the area is split between the North and South District Community Planning Depts. Neither seem capable of dealing effectively with the challenges. The North office seems to be blind to the needs of the public realm. You'll wait 'till hell freezes over before another public park becomes available. Maybe never. I'd rather plan for the future with each and every development application.
 
Sept 27th:

5KO6x.jpg
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top