Union Park | 303.26m | 58s | Oxford Properties | Pelli Clarke Pelli

daniel_kryz

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Mar 10, 2020
Messages
450
Reaction score
898
I personally think Toronto needs to move on from the CN tower. It's a relic of the 1970s. The height of the CN tower observation deck has acted like an artificial buffer preventing taller buildings from being constructed. It's been 50 years.

Time to move and for Toronto to build higher.
I completely disagree. The CN Tower has its faults, such as the base where the concrete doesn't look so nice and the utility boxes above the observation pod, but it's an icon that gives identity to our increasingly bland skyline. You can see it from most parts of the inner city. Just as the Eiffel Tower is crucially important for Paris, the CN Tower should be the most prominent structure in downtown.

It's another conversation if we're talking about making it more relevant and integrated into our city.
It's another conversation if we're talking about growing our city without trashing our most prominent landmarks.
Otherwise, it's exactly the kind of anti-development sentiment that I would back.

At the same time, I don't understand what the fascination is with supertalls. This height fetish is so focused on size instead of quality.
We already know that there are far better ways to add housing supply rather than stuffing all growth into our already unlivable downtown.

PXL_20220314_124111762.jpg
PXL_20220514_002625565.MP.jpg

(taken from Union Station and the back alleys of Kensington Market)
 
Last edited:

limer

New Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jul 9, 2021
Messages
44
Reaction score
496
I completely disagree. The CN Tower has its faults, such as the base where the concrete doesn't look so nice and the utility boxes above the observation pod, but it's an icon that gives identity to our increasingly bland skyline. You can see it from most parts of the inner city. Just as the Eiffel Tower is crucially important for Paris, the CN Tower should be the most prominent structure in downtown.

It's another conversation if we're talking about making it more relevant and integrated into our city.
It's another conversation if we're talking about growing our city without trashing our most prominent landmarks.
Otherwise, it's exactly the kind of anti-development sentiment that I would back.

At the same time, I don't understand what the fascination is with supertalls. This height fetish is so focused on size instead of quality.
We already know that there are far better ways to add housing supply rather than stuffing all growth into our already unlivable downtown.

View attachment 416318 View attachment 416317
(taken from Union Station and the back alleys of Kensington Market)

Agreed. After watching Turning Red, I realized how the CN tower used to be so visible from different points in the city. It took me back to my childhood, when the Tower was my trusty compass when I took a wrong turn lol. Now it’s usually hidden, but I still love walking down Spadina and seeing the Tower peak over the table top condos in the Entertainment District. Granted, I know these views wouldn’t last forever as the city needs to grow in terms of housing, but supertalls (especially megatalls) don’t really answer that need.

I like cities with an architectural focal point, and the CN tower does that very well. I don’t think Union Park will spoil that necessarily, but I do understand the sentiment behind the DRP’s comments.
 

TossYourJacket

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Feb 22, 2018
Messages
1,004
Reaction score
2,456
At the same time, I don't understand what the fascination is with supertalls. This height fetish is so focused on size instead of quality.
We already know that there are far better ways to add housing supply rather than stuffing all growth into our already unlivable downtown.
Some people on here act as if we're gonna build supertalls with 100% affordable housing inside and that will solve the housing crisis, when in reality supertalls are for two things: the ultra-rich, and money laundering. Those people are confusing the fact that a really tall building may look cool with the idea that it's somehow the best thing to build in any given location.

I don't mind the supertall here as it's an office tower, which make more sense than supertall condos IMO, but the idea that the problem with Toronto is a lack of supertalls is nothing but a fetish for building height, not an accurate evaluation of the issues with our city.

And let's be real, this is Toronto, do we really want Concord Adex building supertalls covered in grey spandrel everywhere?
 

3Dementia

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 24, 2007
Messages
3,266
Reaction score
4,044
Some people on here act as if we're gonna build supertalls with 100% affordable housing inside and that will solve the housing crisis, when in reality supertalls are for two things: the ultra-rich, and money laundering. Those people are confusing the fact that a really tall building may look cool with the idea that it's somehow the best thing to build in any given location.

I don't mind the supertall here as it's an office tower, which make more sense than supertall condos IMO, but the idea that the problem with Toronto is a lack of supertalls is nothing but a fetish for building height, not an accurate evaluation of the issues with our city.

And let's be real, this is Toronto, do we really want Concord Adex building supertalls covered in grey spandrel everywhere?
Well they're a metre shy of starting to do just that 🌩️
 

UtakataNoAnnex

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Mar 5, 2020
Messages
4,019
Reaction score
5,523
Isn’t this so communication signals are not blocked, as much? I can pick up all the Buffalo TV stations from my condo digital tv antenna at ~100m but have problems with CTV bouncing off the CN tower to the east at times.
I really don't know about that...as my limited understanding that this may have been an issue back in the day when there was a heavy reliance on analog signals. It is likely why the CN Tower was built here and the financial district with all its tall buildings kept over there. I'm not sure tall buildings in the proximity of said Tower would be as critical today though...

...but that's not the narrative used in the critique of this project it seems. Rather one of purely aesthetics than where communications are concerned.
 

khris

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Aug 28, 2007
Messages
8,601
Reaction score
481
Location
Toronto, ON
Unliveable downtown? Pffft.
Ya, I definitely disagree with this sentiment as well. Downtown is extremely livable. There are pockets of downtown that need improvement. East of Yonge and south of Carlton to like King St. E would be one area that needs improvement. I think it's coming though with all the new development, it should bring more life to the area.
 

Northern Light

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
May 20, 2007
Messages
21,250
Reaction score
51,624
Location
Toronto/EY
Perhaps on the outer edges in the east and west end, it's fine. But the core is not particularly livable.

?

Lots of people already live in the 'core'. I'm not sure what's unlivable about it.

There's supermarkets, retail, doctors offices/hospitals, great transit....

Sure there needs to be more park space.........and there is a shortage of school space......

It's certainly not everyone's taste.......but I find that statement something of a non-sequitur.
 

UtakataNoAnnex

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Mar 5, 2020
Messages
4,019
Reaction score
5,523
I think "unlivable" here means they don't like to live down here...which is fair enough. As opposed to "unsurvivable", which would be a ridiculous claim to make.
 

sunnyside

New Member
Member Bio
Joined
Oct 7, 2021
Messages
79
Reaction score
123
Perhaps they just mean it’s too dense. Which is a fair argument I suppose, and is definetely a product of the policies we have enacted for growth in Toronto reaching their ultimate conclusion. I wouldnt say it’s unliveable however; maybe just unlivable for a broad range of demographics. I can’t see families, the elderly or disabled looking to live downtown permanently. That’s something we’ve always known anecdotally; that the “hustle and bustle” and “crowdedness” of the city is just too much for anyone but young urban professionals.

To me this includes downtown proper and all its tendrils. It’s clear however that an urban area is as livable as we make it, and the greater downtown (most of the old city) is perfectly livable for all demographics. It’s that appeal that is likely driving growth in the immediate core, and that is fine. As long as we aren’t pushing out the downtown-adjacent families and residents en-masse or creating vertical slums, then adding density in the core is fine too. Downtown is perfectly livable for its target demographic, and those who are outside of that market can live just a few city blocks away in the east or west end.
 

Undead

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Sep 3, 2020
Messages
2,527
Reaction score
6,143
Location
Condoland
Sorry for the OT, last post. Noise, crime, crowds, transient population, small units, bad for driving/walking/cycling/transit, lack of greenery/green space. I know many of these issues are present across most of the city. But they're particularly acute and concentrated downtown.

For the record--I'm young, I like transit and I live in an apartment. Maybe I'm the "target demographic" for downtown. But you wouldn't catch me dead living there. Hard pass for this millenial.
 

Northern Light

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
May 20, 2007
Messages
21,250
Reaction score
51,624
Location
Toronto/EY

Sure, urban fact of life


Toronto is among the safest cities in the world; and downtown is relatively safe, it's certainly not among the least safe areas of the City (which are still fairly safe)


Yah, there is that.

, transient population

It's an issue; but I wouldn't say at a level that creates unlivability.
, small units

In much new construction, this is true, but there are larger units to be had, even in new buildings, if you have the $$$; that's also more about the building than the area.

, bad for driving

Sure
/walking/cycling/transit

No. Have to disagree here completely. This area is the gold standard for transit, this is Union Station, this is the U of Line 1, this is the Spadina LRT and extensive 24-hour transit.

This is also a pretty good area for walking and there are lots of cycle tracks.

lack of greenery/green space

Fair.
 

Lenser

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Dec 7, 2011
Messages
3,104
Reaction score
3,601
Location
Leslieville
Calling the core "unlivable" is simply ridiculous hyperbole. But I'm glad Undead subsequently clarified that it's a personal preference and nothing more.

It's a sliding scale, people's tolerance to and appreciation for "urbanity." Some people absolutely love the chaos and tumult of living smack in the middle of a city that's home to millions of people - for them it's a sign of vibrancy. Not everyone is going to be attuned to that sensibility.
 

Top