Toronto Forêt | 139.26m | 41s | Canderel | BDP Quadrangle

[Vertigo3000]

people really be putting chicago's waterfront up on a pedestal but a lot of it just looks like this lmao

Yea my first thought was isn't Lakeshore Drive just lined the entire way up Lake Michigan with highrises way up to almost Evanston! The poster is just being dishonest because they do not like tall buildings and instead of saying that they'd prefer something shorter they're just lying to get their point across.

 

[Northern Light]

@Develop11 have you read the studies associated w/this application?

There are Sun/Shadow Studies and Wind Studies which you can look at and see the exact effects these developments will have.

The link for these is here: http://app.toronto.ca/AIC/index.do?folderRsn=TSB1AL78XqnAYTFsTVrbAw==

You will find the shadow study I mentioned on p.4 under the Application ending in SA, the Pedestrian Level Wind Study is on p.3 These are decent sized documents, so I won't post them all here, but I will post an example page below; you can follow the link for the others.

To read/understand the below, the light is non-shadow, the dark is existing shadow, while the green is new shadow created by this development. So what you can see below is that is no new shadow, on the area w/the running track in the mornings at Spring Equinox.

Additional pages show different times of year and day.

From the Executive Summary of the Wind study:

*****

On a different note, I have nothing against SERRA particularly or the various other NAs.........but you may wish to take a close look at the heights that have been approved already in the area, and in the areas
represented by assorted NAs. I think you will find, that by and large they have been unable to achieve height reductions that might be preferable to some.

One Councillor at Yonge-Eglinton literally lost her job for backing a 50s plus tower, the NAs pushed to elect a different councillor who would stop that.

What they got was another dozen tall towers from their new councillor of choice.

Its just not that easy to oppose such things in a blanket way.

*****

PS, if it isn't yet obvious, the use of hyperbole and exaggeration doesn't bring you allies on this site.

Doubtless, there are legitimate concerns to be had here as is the case with virtually any development or proposal of any kind.

But stretching things from legitimate concern or even selfish preference (and I don't automatically condemn that as we all have them); to catastrophic calamity actually harms your case.

 

[adamc]

HA HA - sense of prominence --more like a hulking presence destroying a mid-rise neighbourhood. Mid-rise neighbourhoods have a right to exist and to have any development fit into their neighbourhood not the other way around.

Sounds like a move to the suburbs would be good for you. Cities need to densify to avoid urban sprawl. We need densification, or to reduce mass immigration numbers; its math. You've already benefitted greatly from your privileged location with property value rises. NIMBYism is selfish. Can't stop the world from changing.

 

[Develop11]

Sounds like a move to the suburbs would be good for you. Cities need to densify to avoid urban sprawl. We need densification, or to reduce mass immigration numbers; its math. You've already benefitted greatly from your privileged location with property value rises. NIMBYism is selfish. Can't stop the world from changing.

Why do I need to move to the suburbs to have less density... Developers are already looking at parkland and ravine land there to build more tall towers. Developers are buying up streets of houses in Toronto and in the burbs that low and mid-income residents were able to rent and putting up shoebox condos. These people are now living in Ajax in order to afford an apartment. I know they really should not have had the privilege of living in this area with its high property values. Right???
If it is a privilege to live in an area where we have a good amount of green space then I guess it is privilege. In the meantime, this is not about NIMBYism but more about irresponsible development in low and mid-rise areas. Pointing to this intersection that has tall towers on the southeast and northwest side does not mean you need to put up more towers -- common sense will tell you that this leads to more traffic congestion and more pollution which contributes to climate change.
Once again, I guess climate change is not a factor to you when all this tall tower development gets built. The big storm we had and the homes and lives lost as a result has nothing to do with building in the wrong places,, does it? Developments moving up north to the suburbs did not plan for this kind of weather and I guess studies were done, but they were flawed. This kind of crazy weather is here to stay and the less we plan for it, the more people will suffer. We need to rebuild areas with care that already have a footprint not create more of a sprawl.

 

[Develop11]

@Develop11 have you read the studies associated w/this application?

There are Sun/Shadow Studies and Wind Studies which you can look at and see the exact effects these developments will have.

The link for these is here: http://app.toronto.ca/AIC/index.do?folderRsn=TSB1AL78XqnAYTFsTVrbAw==

You will find the shadow study I mentioned on p.4 under the Application ending in SA, the Pedestrian Level Wind Study is on p.3 These are decent sized documents, so I won't post them all here, but I will post an example page below; you can follow the link for the others.

To read/understand the below, the light is non-shadow, the dark is existing shadow, while the green is new shadow created by this development. So what you can see below is that is no new shadow, on the area w/the running track in the mornings at Spring Equinox.

View attachment 401807

Additional pages show different times of year and day.

From the Executive Summary of the Wind study:

View attachment 401808
View attachment 401809


*****

On a different note, I have nothing against SERRA particularly or the various other NAs.........but you may wish to take a close look at the heights that have been approved already in the area, and in the areas
represented by assorted NAs. I think you will find, that by and large they have been unable to achieve height reductions that might be preferable to some.

One Councillor at Yonge-Eglinton literally lost her job for backing a 50s plus tower, the NAs pushed to elect a different councillor who would stop that.

What they got was another dozen tall towers from their new councillor of choice.

Its just not that easy to oppose such things in a blanket way.

*****

PS, if it isn't yet obvious, the use of hyperbole and exaggeration doesn't bring you allies on this site.

Doubtless, there are legitimate concerns to be had here as is the case with virtually any development or proposal of any kind.

But stretching things from legitimate concern or even selfish preference (and I don't automatically condemn that as we all have them); to catastrophic calamity actually harms your case.

The Sun\Shadow and Wind Studies you have just trotted out do not make any sense in light of the increased presence of a tunnel that is already there at St.Clair and Bathurst on the northeast corner. Things will not get better for those of us who cross that intersection on a windy day. This year, I had to help a woman who fell over and pick her up and then we both had to cling to the fence at 1467 Bathurst street until the wind passed because we could not move. Other people have had accidents there on a yearly basis not just because of the wind but the snow and icy areas tend to build up and are never plowed properly.

To say there will less shadow and wind is ludicrous. Who did the Executive Summary - was it a private company? Who were they hired by to produce all these graphics? These are key questions for me before I can accept them as legitimate studies. Please do not tell me that studies cannot be done in order to promote a certain viewpoint and presented as fact.

I know there are people at City Hall (not in city planning) who are trying to stop these tall tower developments because of the wind tunnel effects and its serious impact on children and the elderly.. The buildings they cite also had studies done to show that there was no impact prior to development bur window glass still fell to the ground and people still fall over from excessive air blowing and bouncing off buildings.

Ever watched a Community Council meeting where people stand up and beg Councillors and Developers not to build another tall tower that will overshadow a park or parkette? City Hall has already allowed the amendments along with Councillor votes so there really is not a decent way to fight Either City Planners or City Councillors really do not care or do not have the power to stop the group that runs the City of Toronto and GTA. The Developers. I am pleased that the Councillor lost her job for promoting a 50 story tower. Of course, there were lots of other towers planned so it wasn't because of the loss of this tower (sorry but that is a bit of hyperbole there), it was going to happen anyway. SERRA may not be the right place to start but they do have numbers and perhaps smaller NA's could work with them to create this Council of Neighbourhoods. A third arm of government run by neighbourhoods and their volunteers is a way to take our neighbourhoods back if we want to.

I know you are trying to make a case for the developer and 30 story+tower developments but you ignore this and the fact that wind tunnel and shadow impacts not only us but wildlife. I already responded to a post which suggested I move to the suburbs. Developments up north that were supposedly mapped out and planned did not consider wind tunnel, building design (in the event of excessive precipitation) or weak infrastructure -- look at how the poor people of Uxbridge and other areas have suffered. All this to make a buck. Homebuyers put their faith in these developers and the government put their faith in them to do things right. Climate change is going to make the weather crazier - bigger storms, more effect on infrastructure including our sewers and on green space - this is a fact so please do not point to this and tell me it is' hyperbole'.

Also, this is not a selfish preference but more a real worry about the change that tall towers have on mid-rise to low-rise neighbourhoods. Yes, there are tall towers behind to the south in our area but that doesn't mean we should have more??? In this case, less is more

 

[Develop11]

Yea my first thought was isn't Lakeshore Drive just lined the entire way up Lake Michigan with highrises way up to almost Evanston! The poster is just being dishonest because they do not like tall buildings and instead of saying that they'd prefer something shorter they're just lying to get their point across.

Here is a more accurate 'honest' representation than what you have said. See below. Chicago has award winning park and river designs. Population is about 2.7 million and there are about 25 waterfront restaurants to dine at. Like I said, Toronto had a chance and we blew it. The only good thing that happened here was that the Spadina Expressway was stopped.

ENJOY A DAY AT THESE WATERFRONT PARKS IN DOWNTOWN CHICAGO​

Spring is quickly hopping into summer, and it’s the perfect time to get out and explore the best outdoor spaces in Chicago. The grass is green, the fountains are splashing, and the sun is glistening off the lake. Discover these delightful waterfront parks in downtown Chicago within walking distance of the luxury apartments at OneEleven.

CHICAGO RIVERWALK​

The Chicago Riverwalk begins right across the street from OneEleven. This icon of the Windy City is a noteworthy pedestrian zone. It spans more than a mile through downtown areas along the Chicago River. Then it ends at DuSable Harbor. Set aside an afternoon for getting some fresh air, mingling with other locals, and checking a variety of cafes, museums, and more.

POLK BROS PARK​

Just one mile to the east, the Polk Bros Park rests along the banks of Lake Michigan. It lays south of the Navy Pier. Whether you want to enjoy the lawns, the fountain, or the Ferris wheel, you can soak up the summer sun with 270° views of the surrounding waterways. Some call it the “front yard” of Chicago. It’s a favorite meeting place at the mouth of the Chicago River.

BUCKINGHAM FOUNTAIN​

Visit the Buckingham Fountain inside one of Chicago’s most magnificent green spaces along Lake Michigan. Not only is it a pivotal landmark of the shoreline, it’s also one of the largest rococo water fountains on the planet. Find it inside Grant Park, a 319-acre green space full of lawns, gardens, old trees, and magnificent water views. Make time to see the Buckingham Fountain in the summertime when the fountains splash water from three tiers and the city lights it up at night.

 

[Develop11]

Yea my first thought was isn't Lakeshore Drive just lined the entire way up Lake Michigan with highrises way up to almost Evanston! The poster is just being dishonest because they do not like tall buildings and instead of saying that they'd prefer something shorter they're just lying to get their point across.

See reply to Vertigo3000 Also: In response to your honest post, I guess you did not see this part which happened as response to old gray towers which you are right about, they do exist but "Lake Shore Drive in Chicago is the prettiest extended stretch of urban parkway in America. It's bordered for most of its 15-plus miles by green space, beaches and Lake Michigan on the east and by a mix of parkland, skyscrapers and luxury apartments on the west. This expressway-with-some-stoplights is where Chicagoans bring new visitors who, until they get here, imagine the city as just another old, gray, concrete-and-steel metropolis in the Midwest. The best way to experience Lake Shore Drive is by driving south to north."

 

[Northern Light]

See reply to Vertigo3000 Also: In response to your honest post, I guess you did not see this part which happened as response to old gray towers which you are right about, they do exist but "Lake Shore Drive in Chicago is the prettiest extended stretch of urban parkway in America. It's bordered for most of its 15-plus miles by green space, beaches and Lake Michigan on the east and by a mix of parkland, skyscrapers and luxury apartments on the west. This expressway-with-some-stoplights is where Chicagoans bring new visitors who, until they get here, imagine the city as just another old, gray, concrete-and-steel metropolis in the Midwest. The best way to experience Lake Shore Drive is by driving south to north."

You've never been to Chicago have you?

Your description of Lakeshore is far less accurate than are the posts above.

At any rate, is there some reason you feel compelled to attack other posters rather than thoughtfully discuss issues? Your attacks have a conspiratorial vibe that is rather harmful to any quality exchange.

 

[js11122]

Why do I need to move to the suburbs to have less density... Developers are already looking at parkland and ravine land there to build more tall towers. Developers are buying up streets of houses in Toronto and in the burbs that low and mid-income residents were able to rent and putting up shoebox condos. These people are now living in Ajax in order to afford an apartment. I know they really should not have had the privilege of living in this area with its high property values. Right???
If it is a privilege to live in an area where we have a good amount of green space then I guess it is privilege. In the meantime, this is not about NIMBYism but more about irresponsible development in low and mid-rise areas. Pointing to this intersection that has tall towers on the southeast and northwest side does not mean you need to put up more towers -- common sense will tell you that this leads to more traffic congestion and more pollution which contributes to climate change.
Once again, I guess climate change is not a factor to you when all this tall tower development gets built. The big storm we had and the homes and lives lost as a result has nothing to do with building in the wrong places,, does it? Developments moving up north to the suburbs did not plan for this kind of weather and I guess studies were done, but they were flawed. This kind of crazy weather is here to stay and the less we plan for it, the more people will suffer. We need to rebuild areas with care that already have a footprint not create more of a sprawl.

Are your shadow concerns related to shadows on St. Mikes school?

 

[Develop11]

St Michaels is a private school not a public park and I couldn't care at all about it. The buildings at this intersection will be similar in scale to the buildings directly across the street on the south east and north west corners, which you'd know if you were being honest. And there are 2 buildings of similar scale on the other side of St Michaels football field to the east. There 100% is TTC directly below the site, the entrance to the station is less than a minutes walk, the portal for the streetcar to enter St Clair West station is right in front of this site. The site has also been doing soil remediation for years, so I'm not sure where you are getting this blasphemous lies about not knowing what's in the soil.

None of your claims are true, and denying the existence of scale and the presence of the TTC St Clair West subway station and then pivoting to calling a private school property as a park when the park to the south cannot be used for your points is just incredible levels of dishonesty.

I rarely comment here but I am at this intersection every day so felt compelled to respond, but this thread is wildly off track with dishonest talk about the project and should be redirected to talking about the reality of the project and not some make belief claims propounded by some NIMBY. Can we delete all these messages?

*edited

Your message is completely off track. It seems like you did not read what I said but saw what you wanted and twisted it. What does St. Mikes being a school have do with it being public or private property? There are children back there who go to school -- to tell me that their health will not be affected by the close by excessive unloading of dirt, the use of heavy machinery and noise which let's face all of us in the proximity will be affected by, is just not accurate or clear thinking. The eventual result will be that they will feel as if they are surrounded by a wall of buildings.

The streetcar entrance is inside the station and yes, there is one stop opposite the site but if you are referring to the entrance being just a minute walk from the subway exit at Loblaws to the 1467 site, you must have very long legs??? More like five minutes or more just from the street. If you are walking up from the subway or streetcar under loblaws (subway exit and entrance is not as far as Joe's) then it is a much longer walk. Of the buildings , you mention that are of similar scale, there is only one of each NOT THREE. One 25 story building is less than three 33 story buildings. That is a mathematical fact.
In case you didn't notice -- St. Mike's doesn't own the 1467 St. Clair or 490 St. Clair Avenue sites - Canderel and Kingsett Capital own them.

If Suncor knew what they were doing when it came to remediation then why are they still remediating.? They have stopped and started and will not reveal exactly what the data is (some 2500 pages).The fact is the remediators do know what is in the soil that is why they are still remediating after 20 plus years. Get your facts straight or please do not bother to respond to my posts.

 

[Develop11]

You've never been to Chicago have you?

Your description of Lakeshore is far less accurate than are the posts above.

At any rate, is there some reason you feel compelled to attack other posters rather than thoughtfully discuss issues? Your attacks have a conspiratorial vibe that is rather harmful to any quality exchange.

I think I am being the one attacked here because I have a different point of view. The description of Lakeshore I pulled from the web. If you think the description is inaccurate, then you should report it to the Chicago Tourist Authority

 

[Develop11]

Are your shadow concerns related to shadows on St. Mikes school?

My concerns are related to the large looming presence over St. Mikes school, the emergence of shadow at different times of the year and the feeling of the large mass of three towers as i walk by the site. Right now, I can look over and see the sky and the street but when they are built, that view will be gone. Small thing I guess. Pardon me for feeling sad about that.

 

[egotrippin]

It's going to improve the intersection. But the materials look like nothing special, the mechanical penthouses look clumsily designed, and it lacks architectural distinctiveness overall.

You've just described most new projects in Toronto lol

 

[Towered]

My concerns are related to the large looming presence over St. Mikes school, the emergence of shadow at different times of the year and the feeling of the large mass of three towers as i walk by the site. Right now, I can look over and see the sky and the street but when they are built, that view will be gone. Small thing I guess. Pardon me for feeling sad about that.

You're not entitled to an unobstructed view in perpetuity.

 

[UtakataNoAnnex]

You're not entitled to an unobstructed view in perpetuity.

...nothing would ever get built nor would even any tree be allowed to grow otherwise.