Toronto Notting Hill Condominiums | 86.5m | 25s | Lanterra | Arcadis

What's going to happen with the nursery when the development starts ? Is it going to be relocated or closed down? Looking at the size of the building it probably serves a lot of locals that probably aren't too impressed with this condo idea !
i believe it serves more than the locals, i live downtown and occasionally go there, it has a wide variety of many plants and accessories , it's going to be missed:(
 
ya, thats how you build a city, by having 30 storey condos, Guess Toronto should teach London, Rome or Paris on how to build a city. Sure do not see condos that height there.

Rome has about 2.6M people and a density of 2,100 people per sq km. Paris has 2.3M and I doubt the figures are that much different. And before everyone compares Toronto to NYC, it's an island. They have no place to go except high.
The weighted density for their urban areas are 8,900 people per sq km and 13,300 people per sq km respectively.
http://chartingtransport.com/2015/11/26/comparing-the-densities-of-australian-and-european-cities/

Toronto using similar methodology would probably come in around 5,000 people per sq km.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AHK
ya, thats how you build a city, by having 30 storey condos, Guess Toronto should teach London, Rome or Paris on how to build a city. Sure do not see condos that height there.

Rome has about 2.6M people and a density of 2,100 people per sq km. Paris has 2.3M and I doubt the figures are that much different. And before everyone compares Toronto to NYC, it's an island. They have no place to go except high.

Being from Europe and having experienced density, I feel like I need to comment about this idealized vision many people have about european cities.
Toronto was built in a very different way. Densities in Rome, Paris and London are much higher because most people live in small apartments. Streets are heavily built up, with no to little space wasted. Toronto, with its tree lined streets and victorian houses is very unique. I guess that if we want to preserve them, we have to find a way to put density somewhere else - in the core, along transit, along "avenues" - and building "30 storey condos" is a solution. In a city like Paris, neighbourhoods like Cabbagetown, the Annex or Kensington would be long gone, sacrificed for the sake of mid-rise density.
Meanwhile, a friend of mine just bought her own place in Paris, within the city limits. She paid the equivalent of $135,000 (85,000 euros) for a 93-square feet unit - yes, that's 8.6 square meters. When doing the renos, she even considered not putting a toilet in her unit and use those located in the hallway in order to save some space. THAT is how a lot of the non-millionaires live in those dense, wonderful and perfect european capitals.
It would also be wrong to think that Paris, London or Rome don't have sprawling suburbs, highways and malls, crumbling social housing highrises and ghettos, over crowded and inaccessible subways, communities under-served by transit, pollution, noise, dirty streets, people parking their car on a crosswalk or even driving their scooter on the sidewalk.

And to be fair, the city Paris hasn't annexed surrounding communities since 1860 and is only 100-sq kilometres, which is approximately six times smaller than Toronto with its fairly recently amalgamated suburbs. A comparison between these two cities is biased.
 
Oh boy. More architectural stunners from Forsey + Harland...

viewSupportingDoc (4)_Page_2_Page_1.jpg

viewSupportingDoc (4)_Page_2_Page_2.jpg

viewSupportingDoc (4)_Page_3.jpg
 

Attachments

  • viewSupportingDoc (4)_Page_2_Page_1.jpg
    viewSupportingDoc (4)_Page_2_Page_1.jpg
    1.5 MB · Views: 1,526
  • viewSupportingDoc (4)_Page_2_Page_2.jpg
    viewSupportingDoc (4)_Page_2_Page_2.jpg
    1.5 MB · Views: 1,427
  • viewSupportingDoc (4)_Page_3.jpg
    viewSupportingDoc (4)_Page_3.jpg
    1.3 MB · Views: 1,434
View attachment 62496

I had to visualize where this site was, as I had no idea.

Quite a big site. I wonder how urban this area could look at full built-out. Does this site include Eglinton frontage or does the Richview corridor form a small strip between the property and Eglinton?

I also gotta wonder how automobile-oriented this development will be. You have to cross the street to get to the eastbound bus, and the nearest crosswalk is at Royal York. Not the nicest in the wintertime. Unless they can convince the city to add in a crosswalk in front of this development, which wouldn't be unprecedented with the density proposed, but would be to the ire of drivers.

According to the city staff report, a signalized intersection is proposed at the site's eastern driveway. I development this large would definitely require a full-movement intersection controlled by light signals. http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2016/ey/bgrd/backgroundfile-91177.pdf.
 
This isn't an 'Avenue'. This is—practically—a suburban expressway with a fairly wide right-of-way in an apartment neighbourhood, with no adjacent low-rise homes to transition to.

42
 
This isn't an 'Avenue'. This is—practically—a suburban expressway with a fairly wide right-of-way in an apartment neighbourhood, with no adjacent low-rise homes to transition to.

42

The city made it an avenue when it named it. The idea of avenue planning is, in part, to build pedestrian-friendly mixed-use streets where they may not exist presently. Even the far-flung parts of Eglinton could be urbanized with midrise or high-rise buildings with retail on the ground floor. There are streets with higher speed limits in various cities that are still mixed-use, dense and pedestrian friendly.
 
Well, this proposal is to have ten-storey podiums with the last two storeys stepped back, with ground level retail facing Eglinton, so it is still going to feel something like what the Avenues plan calls for when walking along in front of it. The towers will mostly be hidden overhead, and they don't, as I mentioned, have adjacent low-rise to transition to. This is not the typical property associated with the Avenues Plan in more densely built up parts of town (on much narrower rights-of-way), plus we're likely to have the Crosstown West running along here in the mid-term, so I don't know why we wouldn't want pretty high densities here. With ridership studies predicting a major drop-off of patronage on this portion of the Crosstown, every added household on the street (within reason) will make better use of that.

42
 
This isn't an 'Avenue'. This is—practically—a suburban expressway with a fairly wide right-of-way in an apartment neighbourhood, with no adjacent low-rise homes to transition to.

42

Not that I disagree with anything you're saying re: the heights of buildings and transition to low-rise areas here, but technically, this is an 'Avenue' as named in the study...

Avenue.JPG
 

Attachments

  • Avenue.JPG
    Avenue.JPG
    32.9 KB · Views: 884
Yes, I only meant that this is not an Avenue in the way that we understand the built form of the Avenues across 95% of the network.

EDIT: Underlining that fact is that just east of this stretch as shown in that map segment, the section through the parks of the Eglinton Flats ear east of the Humber are also considered an Avenue. With wide open green spaces and no fine grain on either side of the road there, that bit is even further from what's understood to be an Avenue in this planning framework.

42
 

Back
Top