mysteryman
Active Member
It's a much better proposal but the townhouses along Bay Street are still completely inappropriate.
Sir Novelty Fashion
Senior Member
Why?
rdaner
Senior Member
guy in blue
The last slide of the applicant's presentation has a guy wearing white pants and a blue shirt that is also in the presentation for the new towers going up at Distillery. He really gets around.
The last slide of the applicant's presentation has a guy wearing white pants and a blue shirt that is also in the presentation for the new towers going up at Distillery. He really gets around.
Irishmonk
Senior Member
I imagine anyone who has been on this forum for more than a few months is familiar with the reasoning for why ground level residential units along busy commercial strips is inappropriate, or at the very least, poor planning. What I'd like to hear are the arguements for why such a developmentwould be appropriate. That way I could at least hear both sides of the arguement.
Sir Novelty Fashion
Senior Member
Well, for starters, I don't know what you would call that stretch of Bay, except "concrete." What do you call a procession of recessed condo foyers and convenience stores? It's something of a void.
I had it in my little mind that a diversity of uses and scales was a good thing. Now, putting a 50-something storey condo in the middle of a lowrise neighborhood is jarring and disruptive. But putting a row of townhouses that have actual, honest-to-god frontages - front doors, imagine! - on a stretch of godawful towers could provide Bay with the tiniest, desperately needed touch of character.
I don't think the scale of the condos is appropriate for St. Mike's, at all, much as I bemoan what's happened to Charles St., by my dear old Victoria. I think it will be disruptive to the majesty of its church and the public character of its grounds. But if they need to sell the farm, then I won't fault them for doing something nice for Bay while they're at it.
I had it in my little mind that a diversity of uses and scales was a good thing. Now, putting a 50-something storey condo in the middle of a lowrise neighborhood is jarring and disruptive. But putting a row of townhouses that have actual, honest-to-god frontages - front doors, imagine! - on a stretch of godawful towers could provide Bay with the tiniest, desperately needed touch of character.
I don't think the scale of the condos is appropriate for St. Mike's, at all, much as I bemoan what's happened to Charles St., by my dear old Victoria. I think it will be disruptive to the majesty of its church and the public character of its grounds. But if they need to sell the farm, then I won't fault them for doing something nice for Bay while they're at it.
Urban Shocker
Doyenne
The single storey banking hall at the TD Centre isn't overpowered by the tall towers next to it. Diversity of scale and use works just fine if set up intelligently. I think we should challenge the assumptions and rules of planning and zoning more often and rethink how things have traditionally been done - Will Alsop's musings about a planning-free zone in the west end and a Pier 27 development that will make 30% of that private site available for public use being but two recent examples. Allow the principles of innovative, good design to prove that it can be done.
Sir Novelty Fashion
Senior Member
I agree in principle, Shocker. Though in this specific example, the bank hall at TD Centre never drew its power from a sense of height; quite the opposite. Putting a 50 storey tower too close to a church (and not offset, a la Spire) kicks the church where it hurts.
Anyway, I'm more mournful for the Charles St. of yore than I am opposed to what they want to do on St. Mary's. Boo on change.
Anyway, I'm more mournful for the Charles St. of yore than I am opposed to what they want to do on St. Mary's. Boo on change.
Urban Shocker
Doyenne
Yes, that's what I meant about the banking hall - a spread-out building that's low rise, with a concentration of human activity inside it ( people doing their banking ) versus tall towers with people disappearing into and emerging from elevators. Different forms coupled with different uses - and plenty of dynamic open space between the banking hall and the towers to give each it's "space".
I must admit I haven't been following the design of the project under discussion here though ...
I must admit I haven't been following the design of the project under discussion here though ...
Andrew3D
Active Member
I'm thinking towns on Bay are a bad idea as well. This stretch is much better suited for bars, restaurants and retail. Putting private residences along this section of bay will make it completely dead, visually appealing or not it will be another section of Bay that will for ever be lost to the public.
Sir Novelty Fashion
Senior Member
Ah, but Bay Street is already completely dead: a wind tunnel of 80's schlock filled with litigators, and convenience stores full of edible oil products. Condos with no discernable entrance lining a canyon with no discernable exit. The fruits of "ground-floor retail" (Starbucks, dry cleaners, Quiznos) will not salvage Bay.
It's not more retail the stretch needs, it's a shred of humanity. Townhouses are built to a human scale: they have stairs that lead to the street and front doors that imply a life lived there. They visually comprehensible, whereas condos - especially the older type with the recessed entries and featureless walls - are ciphers.
It might not make sense to line an entire artery with them. But eight units of townhouse isn't going to do anything but provide a happy buffer between Bay and the university behind them.
It's not more retail the stretch needs, it's a shred of humanity. Townhouses are built to a human scale: they have stairs that lead to the street and front doors that imply a life lived there. They visually comprehensible, whereas condos - especially the older type with the recessed entries and featureless walls - are ciphers.
It might not make sense to line an entire artery with them. But eight units of townhouse isn't going to do anything but provide a happy buffer between Bay and the university behind them.
maestro
Senior Member
^that read was somethin'
mysteryman
Active Member
But once people move into a street level unit on a main street they usually realize that there's too much traffic, or lots of people can see them when they sit in their living room, so the install blinds that are permanently closed, or they move out, or they decide to open a hair salon, but the space isn't suited to that use so it never really takes off, so it ends up making the street worse.
Bay Street doesn't need townhouses to relate to a human scale, it just needs buildings that are better designed at the street. That's something every street needs.
Bay Street doesn't need townhouses to relate to a human scale, it just needs buildings that are better designed at the street. That's something every street needs.
Irishmonk
Senior Member
You make some good points, SNF. I'm still not in agreement but it's good to hear both sides of the arguement.
urbandreamer
recession proof
why the 3 storey townhouses? That's so small town. 6 stories here folks! Nice retail on the street with 6-8 stories of residential above. I'm sick of this (sexy looking) Aa tower with the puny small town podium look this city is obsessed with. The towers look nice and the stone townhouses appropriate--but build up it's downtown!
EnviroTO
Senior Member
I don't think towns on Bay makes much sense either. In behind and on St Mary's seems fine but on a main street like Bay towns seems inappropriate due to the scale of the other buildings on Bay and the lack of quiet or privacy that can be expected on a street that busy. Walking out the front door of a town onto Bay St in the middle of downtown 250ft south of the Manulife Tower? This idea seems comparable to proposing some towns on Temperance St. The proposal looks better that most of the slabs in the area, especially the towers in the park, but I think anything aA would come up with would top the slabs in the area.