fedplanner
Active Member
Or use existing staff to focus on priorities, not nuances. [/inappropriate personal opinion]
Toronto Pinnacle One Yonge | 345.5m | 105s | Pinnacle | Hariri Pontarini
- Thread starter androiduk
- Start date
Or use existing staff to focus on priorities, not nuances. [/inappropriate personal opinion]
fedplanner
Active Member
Hahaha, mr. Rezoski you have some explaining to do...unless this all BS, which most likely could be
How is it BS? Per the Toronto Star article...
Al Rezoski, the city’s acting manager of community planning, downtown section, stressed that Pinnacle has been asked to hold off on submitting a proposal for the One Yonge site until the area study is completed. The study, he said, would help to determine how much development the area can sustain.
Seems reasonable to me that the City would and should be conducting a study to determine what amount of development is sustainable for the area…
but unless the study looks at what is possible with increased GO Transit and TTC service based on beefed up service frequencies and new lines, as well as considering the impact of new PATH pedestrian access, then the study would not be complete.
That said, I've met a lot of planners over the last few years, and as much as people like to demonize the planners here, they are a pretty reasonable bunch and very professional, so I expect that the study actually will take into account increases in the transport system that are eventually coming our way.
42
but unless the study looks at what is possible with increased GO Transit and TTC service based on beefed up service frequencies and new lines, as well as considering the impact of new PATH pedestrian access, then the study would not be complete.
That said, I've met a lot of planners over the last few years, and as much as people like to demonize the planners here, they are a pretty reasonable bunch and very professional, so I expect that the study actually will take into account increases in the transport system that are eventually coming our way.
42
fedplanner
Active Member
That sounds perfectly reasonable. My issue is with the developer being asked not to submit an application until a planning study is completed without it being public knowledge.
Additionally, I've seen too many abuses in southern U.S. cities. A public sector planner with a chip on his shoulder can make a developer's life living hell without anyone knowing about it. It's disgusting behavior. I don't believe that's what is happening in this situation, but the potential for abuse is there when directives are given in the shadows.
Last edited:
adma
Superstar
Y'know, some of this excess longing for Asian-style urbanity'n'supertalls is making me imagine an equivalent forum of 80 years ago, chastizing those "historically clingy" European cities because they don't have spectacular several-hundred-footers a la NYC or Chicago. (And given the culture of 80 years ago, I *really* have to resist arbitrarily Godwinnng that argument.)
buildup
Senior Member
I don't think the analogy holds. First of all - these are not mega-talls that are totally out of contect, rather they are very tall buildings the city's increasing density calls for. In no cases are these buildings disrupting intact neighbourhoods that exemplify a renowned style. This isn't Prague. The quality of our archictural stock needs an upgrade. If we had the same inventory as the cities you allude to it would be a different story. What's the alternative?
gristle
Senior Member
But why waste time submitting an application prior to a planning study? Time will only be wasted by doing so. The process will probably include public consultation and documents will be publicly accessible. That's my experience with planning studies in the city. Besides, there isn't some nefarious anti-soopertall cadre operating in city planning, and the insinuation of some abusive anti-developer element operating here is completely unsubstantiated. Sites like this have to be studies because the change in density will be significant. It isn't a case of developing a block, but developing a block with greatly increased density that is embedded in the downtown of the city. It should be obvious that there is much to consider.
dt_toronto_geek
Superstar
I think that this is a really good and important point khristopher. If we want to get out from behind the Internets and affect change we all need to know when community consultations are being held, attend them and speak up!
90% of the time? With respect, I don't think so - or somehow I'm missing a lot of them and I'm on here pretty much every day.
Twitter, FB, a database or thread & the weekly email that many members subscribe to. Perhaps we could get a couple of volunteers to work out the logistics and help get this off the ground? I'm game.
adma
Superstar
However, if you knew what the gist of what "urban discussion" 80 years ago was all about, said "intact neighbourhoods" might well have been regarded as the dead wood of history rather than as something "desirable"...
agoraflaneur
Active Member
I agree with buildup about the current proposal: a parking lot next to the Gardiner and railway that screams to have a massive build out. History has already been erased (and when it comes to large industrial plots of land that don't house nice factory buildings, this is almost always the case).
But adma's point is definitely apt: they replaced cabbage town with Regent park precisely with the idea that "our housing stock needs to be upgraded", which was code for demolishing instead of renovating (does buildup think Prague doesn't need some "upgrading" - 20 years ago a lot of that fantastic architecture had been left to rot and has been continually renovated since then - just not demolished). Similarly, the Village, the Annex and Yorkville had hack and slash jobs done to them (with some decent examples of modernism thrown in). Our housing stock is quite lovely - certainly not the cat's meow when compared to many places in Europe, but quality nonetheless.
But adma's point is definitely apt: they replaced cabbage town with Regent park precisely with the idea that "our housing stock needs to be upgraded", which was code for demolishing instead of renovating (does buildup think Prague doesn't need some "upgrading" - 20 years ago a lot of that fantastic architecture had been left to rot and has been continually renovated since then - just not demolished). Similarly, the Village, the Annex and Yorkville had hack and slash jobs done to them (with some decent examples of modernism thrown in). Our housing stock is quite lovely - certainly not the cat's meow when compared to many places in Europe, but quality nonetheless.
brockm
Active Member
Oh trust me, I live in the area -- when most of the people in these existing condos catch wind of this proposal, they're going to go apeshit. Why? Because they're selfish, over-privileged, hypocrites. But they did succeed in getting the developer over at York St. to shave some floors off their proposal.
AHK
Senior Member
Minor clarification regarding historical content of this area: Basically - it has no history. Everything south of Front Street is landfill. There have been some interim uses, such as the now gone WCB / OPP building at 90 Harbour Street, but it is entirely possible that the parking lot area portion of the 1 Yonge Street property was never used for much more than the harbour's shipping storage, and then parking. I do not know for sure, but I cannot remember ever seeing anything more there in any of the historical photographs I have seen.
Automation Gallery
Superstar
Hahaha, they must feel special when they succeed to get the city to chop-off a couple meters here and there on some of these new developments
RC8
Senior Member
I like the office component. This part of Toronto needs a lot more neighbourhood-building, however, and this project isn't really helping in that regard.
People who want 'supertalls' and compare us to China are just 'fanboys'. Anyone with any experience in planning knows that building height is pretty irrelevant when it comes to building functional communities. I suggest that, instead of looking at the dysfunctional hell that is shanghai for inspiration, we look at London or Berlin.
In places like Hong Kong, high rise structures work fairly well because families are willing to live in them and space is provided for them to do so. These developments currently being proposed in Toronto are so strongly geared to a transitory class of young urban professionals, that we are condemning parts of the city to never reaching proper urban maturity. This model simultaneously isolates suburbs from new ideas (see NY).
Cityplace, with all its flaws, is one of the best examples of family-friendly high-rise development in terms of its built form. I want to see this city building projects where you could see your 80-year old father living peacefully, or where you would like to raise a child. If this development and the LCBO lands go so high and pay so little attention to ground level, I'm afraid we will have missed the chance to have a beautiful inclusive community steps from the financial district.
People who want 'supertalls' and compare us to China are just 'fanboys'. Anyone with any experience in planning knows that building height is pretty irrelevant when it comes to building functional communities. I suggest that, instead of looking at the dysfunctional hell that is shanghai for inspiration, we look at London or Berlin.
In places like Hong Kong, high rise structures work fairly well because families are willing to live in them and space is provided for them to do so. These developments currently being proposed in Toronto are so strongly geared to a transitory class of young urban professionals, that we are condemning parts of the city to never reaching proper urban maturity. This model simultaneously isolates suburbs from new ideas (see NY).
Cityplace, with all its flaws, is one of the best examples of family-friendly high-rise development in terms of its built form. I want to see this city building projects where you could see your 80-year old father living peacefully, or where you would like to raise a child. If this development and the LCBO lands go so high and pay so little attention to ground level, I'm afraid we will have missed the chance to have a beautiful inclusive community steps from the financial district.
balenciaga
Banned
Agree with most part. But why do you think Hong Kong functions well but Shanghai is a "dysfunctional hell"? I simply don't understand. Hong Kong is a lot denser than Shanghai with most people living in tiny apartments, while in Shanghai, most condo projects are geared toward families as most are 2-3 bedrooms. Isn't it what Toronto wants, as you seem to have implied? In Shanghai, there are a very low percentage of one bedroom new condo apartments (maybe 10%) and you hardly see those 400-500sf mini suites that we constantly build in TO.
Additionally, Hong Kong's condo buildings are a lot taller than Shanghai as well. I just don't see your logic here.
Last edited: