Toronto Pinnacle One Yonge | 345.5m | 105s | Pinnacle | Hariri Pontarini

[AlvinofDiaspar]

fedplanner:

While there are many legitimate issues with the quality of buildings going up in the city, truncated buildings does not equal better development. There is nothing wrong with height or density at this location.

Nor does truncated buildings at a lesser density equate to poorer development necessarily. If the reductions of a few floors turned a project into a "bad" development there is something fundamentally wrong with the project itself.

AoD

 

[balenciaga]

Wasn't really speaking of this development specifically. I was speaking in general as to the unsustainable pace of development ( in the city).

on what ground do you claim it is not sustainable?
What is sustainable, our vast and constantly expanding car dependent suburbs where there is basically nothing available within walking distance and people need to drive 15 minutes to buy a bag of milk?

 

[Mike in TO]

Re: comments on left wing politicians automatically equaling anti-development

Kyle Rae during his time on council oversaw and mostly supported more applications than possibly the rest of council combined over the decade leading up to the last election.... Doug Ford despite his apparent love of the "private sector" and a free market approach is strongly opposed to the height and density proposed by Tridel in the Humbertown project.

Re: anti-planning comments regarding the upcoming area study

City building in the real world is a little different than sim city and dropping tall buildings onto properties with complete disregard for the surrounding community and infrastructure - there are legitimate capacity constraints that require careful consideration including the local power supply, water and waste water capacity/connections and upgrades, site access & integration into the road network (which may or may not require a complete overhaul in the immediate vicinity of the site), improving the pedestrian realm and access to the waterfront, appropriate range and mix of uses etc... there is a lot more to planning, architecture, city building etc than a simplistic height & density equation that many seem to be foaming at the mouth over - any development, let alone one proposing four residential towers over 70 floors and an office tower requires a lot of study, negotiation and review by a wide range of city departments, private consultants and a range of professionals from both the city side and the developer side. It is important to "get it right" on such an important site - which requires a lot of work, not a rubber stamp because it is tall and happens to be close to union station.

 

[balenciaga]

^ It is all nice and diplomatic words, but in sum, let's not do things. Let's have more meetings, more multi-million dollar studies, probes, investigations, EAs, involving more NIMBYs (aka "communities"), produce more reports on "shadowing" and congestion issues before actually building a damn thing. Just like what we did to our transit for the past 20 years.

We never get tired of hearing nicely put words like "community, integration, planning, careful review, consultation, urban fabric", do we? In short, let's not act because we might make mistakes. Let's keep talking and writing reports.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Funny, this planning process has created one of the biggest crop of development over the past few decades- things didn't exactly "grind to a halt" due to the requirement for studies, did it? And besides, can you legitimately blame the process on the transit file when in fact it is the politicians who had been dithering on funding - e.g. Spadina extension.

AoD

 

[CityPlaceN1]

^ It is all nice and diplomatic words, but in sum, let's not do things. Let's have more meetings, more multi-million dollar studies, probes, investigations, EAs, involving more NIMBYs (aka "communities"), produce more reports on "shadowing" and congestion issues before actually building a damn thing. Just like what we did to our transit for the past 20 years.

We never get tired of hearing nicely put words like "community, integration, planning, careful review, consultation, urban fabric", do we? In short, let's not act because we might make mistakes. Let's keep talking and writing reports.

Sure let's not do any planning like Houston. That's an urban paradise don't you know!

 

[balenciaga]

Sure let's not do any planning like Houston. That's an urban paradise don't you know!

I am not suggesting no planning at all. But we seem to have excessive planning and all sorts of consultations which make any project to last forever to happen.
If I am not mistaken, it cost $950K for the EA of the Jarvis bike lane, compared with only $86k to install it, then another $275k to remove it two years later.

Yeah, more planning and EAs for Toronto are definitely needed. Why the hell do we need a 1 million dollar EA on a simple bike lane is beyond me. But apparently you guys think it is all money well spent.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

What does an EA for a bike lane has anything to do with this or other private development proposal? It's a different process and it's already been demonstrated to you that the process for the latter did not result in an apocalyptic end to development - repeating your assertions over and over again doesn't change that fundamental error you've made.

But then, after 2 previous bannings, old habits die hard eh?

AoD

 

[someMidTowner]

sorry, you can't abuse power like that. I was only discussiong and raising the concern our regulation might be excessive and planning too long, no matter what "fundamental errors" I made.
Logically speaking, just because a policy didn't lead to "apocalyptic" results doesn't mean it is not flawed.

He isn't at all abusing power. If anything, you are abusing your right to post on this forum by constantly derailing every thread you touch.

 

[UrbanAffair]

Why even bother responding to balenciaga. His views are of a city with little to no planning, free reign, no due diligence, no oversight, chaos.

mmmm...looks great!

What a level headed and sensible young fella this Balenciaga is...glad he is not a planner in this city.

Back on the topic of this thread, I do like the architecture and quality rendered for this project, but I will have more patience than to insist it be built regardless of any real world factors.

 

[CanadianNational]

I think the foot of Yonge would be a great spot for some notable new buildings. It think it's safe to say the layout, quality, type and massing of the site will be far improved from the small sketch we've seen. I would also be pleasing to see a building gently surpass First Canadian Place. Back in the late 70's and early '80's there was talk that Olympia And York had signed a deal with the city guaranteeing that no building would be built taller than it. Also, there was also talk that the city didn't want anything going up above 1200 ft. because that's the height of the microwave dish set in the 'bubble' on the CN Tower. Both of these things might be unfounded, but were talked about a lot in school.

What I'd like to see in the sketch for the site and don't, are any kind of cultural facilities. If you're going to building right at the foot of Yonge, I don't think it's enough to have Toronto's possible new tallest - I think there should be a venue there that is worthy of the place, one that will buff up it's latent symbolism to a bright shine.

 

[Xray_Crystal_Junkie]

It think it's safe to say the layout, quality, type and massing of the site will be far improved from the small sketch we've seen.

Really? What didn't you like about it? Built as is, it would be some of the most daring architecture in the city. I take it from the rest of your post that the height of the buildings isn't the problem.

I'm expecting it to go in the opposite direction, that what we saw is a fantasy begging for some cost engineering.

 

[agoraflaneur]

FYI, Seattle's skyline looks a hell of a lot better than Vancouver's

Being from Vancouver, I will take the bait. While the skyline of a city that is over 1 million people larger in the metro (and a lot more in the state, not to mention the much much larger corporate base) may look a bit nicer from a few angles when you look at it from your suburb, I doubt you would find too many cities in North America that work better on the ground than Vancouver. Seattle is a ghost town after dark, while Vancouver is abuzz. People live in Vancouver, they commute to Seattle. Above all, Vancouver is not cut off from the water by a huge freeway as in Seattle (and Toronto). Seattle is now going to spend massively to correct that mistake by taking down the expressway (do you support doing that for Toronto if you think Seattle is so great?). From many angles in Vancouver the view cone protects views of the mountains, emphasizing the beauty of the city juxtaposed with nature, enhancing the skyline to an extent Seattle cannot match.

With that said, I believe Vancouver should lift its height restrictions for certain areas, as it has done for six sites including the Shangri-la, but it would not be a better city just because it had a few supertalls thrown in. Moreover, I believe that 1 Yonge should go very tall, and I dislike the NIMBY group that acts as if more people will be bad for an area that feels stale and deserted when it should be the heart of the city - which I hope it can become one day. The only thing I agree with them about is that we need more infrastructure to accompany the development. As for Chow, why are you blaming her when it was Ford who presided over the lopping off of Ten York? Right wing fear mongering is all too rampant in our times, and far too influential.

 

[dt_toronto_geek]

Not fear mongering. As the picture above proves Chow is firmly on the side of the NIMBY's (she is sitting in a private living room of one of them). If she were Mayor any meddling on her part to "improve" the development process would no doubt involve setting strict limits on heights of buildings so as to appease her NIMBY constituents. This will have the effect of snuffing out the current building boom. As for affordable housing I don't doubt that this is an issue close to her heart. The Layton's have long had an affinity for subsidized living accommodations, but the fact is without money from the Province there is little a Mayor of Toronto can do to build more affordable housing. Mandating that developers of ultra-luxurious waterfront condo's set aside a certain number of subsidized units (such as was required of Tridel for the 10 York development by that idiot Adam Vaughan) is the most wrong-headed approach to the shortage of affordable housing that I can think of.

I can't see how Olivia Chow had anything to do with Ten York and even if she was Mayor, what part would she play in a development application? There are tens of thousands of people on waiting lists for affordable housing in an increasingly expensive city, dedicating a few floors in each development would put a good dent in that list over the next few years if a policy was developed, adopted and implemented. And since when are all those waterfront condos ultra luxurious? Come on!

What does an EA for a bike lane has anything to do with this or other private development proposal? It's a different process and it's already been demonstrated to you that the process for the latter did not result in an apocalyptic end to development - repeating your assertions over and over again doesn't change that fundamental error you've made.

But then, after 2 previous bannings, old habits die hard eh?

AoD

The EA was for the Jarvis Street Cultural Corridor/Streetscape improvements, not for bike lanes per se. All we got out of it was temporary bike lanes and then Council tossed out the EA despite several last ditch Motions by Councillor Wong-Tam.

 

[Peepers]

Re: comments on left wing politicians automatically equaling anti-development

I don't automatically equate left wing with anti-development. You're right Kyle Rae, an NDP candidate was pro-development and now runs a consulting company for developers. David Crombie - Toronto's tiny imperfect mayor - was a Conservative politician who did more damage to the development of downtown Toronto than any Mayor in history of this city when he imposed his 45 foot height bylaw. He stopped dead in its track the building boom that we saw in the late 60's and throughout the '70's that gave us the major buildings that even today define our skyline. Even with our current long running building boom nothing has been built to equal or surpass the buildings erected before David Crombie came along and killed things.