Toronto The Livmore | 138.68m | 43s | Vertica | IBI Group

My understanding is that this project has been completely redesigned; no longer the stacked, varied blocks from the design we saw before.
 
I saw posts from Urban Shocker and got all excited until I noticed the date stamps, and now I'm sad he's gone all over again.

SP!RE said:
My understanding is that this project has been completely redesigned; no longer the stacked, varied blocks from the design we saw before.
Click to expand...

That's a pity. I'm not sure if the stacked look from earlier was entirely successful, but it was certainly interesting. Hopefully the new proposal isn't just a glass rectangl-- oh, I can't even finish that sentence with a straight face.
 
I strongly believe in the Design Review Panels however introducing a little public participation into this process would be beneficial IMO. Right now its a panel of experts, which is good, but sometimes even the experts could use a reality check, or at least entertain a few comments from the public.

I also get irked each time I read a comment questioning the need for a particular development, similar what was done at E Condos. The developer wants to build x number of units, the design review panel should figure out the best design to accommodate those units, while city planning gives their recommendations on the appropriateness of the proposal.

Although, I'm maybe a little biased since I don't believe in height or density limits in areas near rail transit lines where tall buildings already exist.
 
Design is not democracy. How would giving voice to people who don't know anything about architecture or the design process be beneficial?
 
ProjectEnd said:
Design is not democracy. How would giving voice to people who don't know anything about architecture or the design process be beneficial?
Click to expand...

Robert Moses had a very similar view with planning, for what's it worth. I've given my opinion and the rational. Take it or leave it.
 
fedplanner:

But why restrict it to the design aspect? If you are going with the Robert Moses argument, the democratic alternative wouldn't be seats on the DRP, but citizen/neighbourhood control over the planning process, the result of which will be utterly at odds with your disbelief in height or density limits.

AoD
 
Last edited:
ProjectEnd said:
Design is not democracy. How would giving voice to people who don't know anything about architecture or the design process be beneficial?
Click to expand...

'cause "Out of the mouths of babes" has stood the test of time.

'cause having the credentials should not be a free pass to litter a city with maximum developer margin buildings.

'cause folks who actually use the public realm might just know what works/is needed no matter how extraordinary and gallery-worthy the site-plans and renderings are.

'cause plenty of sub-specialist million dollar a year surgeons are being sued for ruining the health/lives of patients (I believe it's called mal-practice).

'cause most public consultations are (cynically) about politically correct optics, not information to fuel better design... attended by the same gangs that scare me as much as any local triads.

'cause the only other loud voices... the media... can scream their agendas (informed or not) to many thousands of ears (X 2).

'cause "experts" are human. Some of them are brilliant and capable. Some of them should be in jail.

What forum/participation could mitigate it all? Not sure. Worth a try though.
 
fedplanner said:
Robert Moses had a very similar view with planning, for what's it worth. I've given my opinion and the rational. Take it or leave it.
Click to expand...

Actually, if you'd been following Moses' historiography you'd know that there's been a dramatic reassessment of his particular brand of urban development. You also haven't given any rationale. You stated that people should be more involved in the design process, I questioned the logic of that, then you threw an extreme example of top-down planning. Where's the rationale?
 
The issue with public consultation that is given teeth is that it inevitably leads to nimbyism. With all the lefties living downtown, it would all be low to midrise crap filled with social housing. Not saying there isn't a need for the social housing, just using that to illustrate a point. The same could be said if the folks in Rosedale were to kaibosh an highrise development or social housing in their community.

It would in the end, stifle investment and grind building to a halt.

Thus, it is best if the public is given their say but their opinion should only be one small part of the decision making process.

Of course, if teh Tories get into power and castrate the OMB as they plan, that could all change.
 
AlvinofDiaspar said:
fedplanner:

But why restrict it to the design aspect? If you are going with the Robert Moses argument, the democratic alternative wouldn't be seats on the DRP, but citizen/neighbourhood control over the planning process, the result of which will be utterly at odds with your disbelief in height or density limits.

AoD
Click to expand...

My thoughts are the design review process can be improved by getting some feedback from the public on design elements. I believe there can be middle ground by allowing some mechanism to solict public feedback rather than keeping it exclusive to experts. Something as simple as having just one ordinary member of the community may spot something that the experts miss.

On the topic of height and density, the limits were initially established by the experts to in response to public health and safety concerns. They also exist to make sure that current infrastructure has the capacity to service the existing population so quality of life is not harmed.

However, the paradigm has changed. Building codes have become more rigorous, in turn promoting public health and safety. Infrastructure improvements, specifically transportation infrastructure, no longer revolved around the car. There is only so many lanes that can be added to the highway and downtown streets can only expand so large. There was a good cause for a density limit when planning revolved around cars.

Toronto is different as a strong transit culture exists and is growing. It's one of the few cities in North America where it's possible to traverse to most places in the city without the need of owning a car.

With the new developments coming online, that have greatly exceeded existing zoning, it's sparked serious discussion about the Downtown Relief Line and other transit routes. I don't believe that would have happened had everything been built to the existing height and zoning limits. I also believe the new development has brought an incredible vibrancy and energy to the city, especially areas that were long neglected.

If area residents had veto power over every development, that probably wouldn't work. Having a Robert Moses type expert calling the shots didn't work either. Giving developers free reign has also proven to be disastrous. I want to see high quality development in Toronto. I believe that can be accomplished thru excellent site planning but without limiting density in areas of the city that can support it. (I.e. on a subway line or in the downtown core). A community may not welcome the development, because people can be afraid of change. The Minto towers at Yonge and Eglinton was fiercely fought because it greatly exceeded existing zoning. The end result was two beautiful towers, with street fronting retail, on the subway line, replacing a parking lot and providing homes for over 600 people. Whatever perceived negative aspects this tower had will soon be long forgotten.

Alvin and ProjectEnd, I apologize for being all over the map in my response. It's something I'm very passionate about and believe in strongly. On the plus side, the status-quo isn't ideal but Toronto is undergoing an incredible transformation. I love the city and it only continues to get better. Perhaps that's something we call all agree with?
 
What's with this person bringing threads back from the dead, just to say a few words with no updates or new information?
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top