PEC
Active Member
Getting rid of the parking lot is an act of public safety! I know of more car accidents and personal injury in this lot than in any other shopping centre.
Toronto Lawrence Plaza Redevelopment | 130.9m | 40s | RioCan | Diamond Schmitt
- Thread starter Seamus92
- Start date
AlexBozikovic
Active Member
At least the park will be lively, because this massively overscaled road will be occupied by food trucks…
flonicky
Senior Member
Yeah, that pretty much fixes it.
AlbertC
Superstar
Forget urbanism, all I need are AI generated food trucks serving endless arrays of Challah, Blintzes, and Babkas!
aguyfromtoronto
New Member
Damn, 10 years? I’m looking to buy my first property, would’ve definitely been interested.
Northern Light
Superstar
GZS
New Member
40 storey towers are excessive,
Also only the highest buildings would be placed on the main roads i.e. Bathurst St and Lawrence Avenue.
The other proposed buildings off Bathurst Street i.e. Covington are also excessively high by City of Toronto standards.
In example review the building being built at the N/W corner of Bathurst and Douglas it is 10 storey's in height on Bathurst St. reduces to 6 storey,s on the west side of the property.
Also only the highest buildings would be placed on the main roads i.e. Bathurst St and Lawrence Avenue.
The other proposed buildings off Bathurst Street i.e. Covington are also excessively high by City of Toronto standards.
In example review the building being built at the N/W corner of Bathurst and Douglas it is 10 storey's in height on Bathurst St. reduces to 6 storey,s on the west side of the property.
Cambry Ardship
Active Member
This? This is what you're worried about? It's bog-standard. You can find similar development patterns everywhere in this city. Hardly excessive in any way.
It's way better than the site's current use, which is an oversized parking lot serving a strip mall.
It's way better than the site's current use, which is an oversized parking lot serving a strip mall.
Koops65
Senior Member
GZS
New Member
I agree about the current use is outdated, BUT 40 storey towers are excessive,
Cambry Ardship
Active Member
And here's what Councillor Colle is spending his effort on. Saving a parking lot.
Northern Light
Superstar
You can make that case, but may I suggest, you're not doing a great job of persuasion here..
Let me start w/the notion than when first posting on any forum, its good to introduce yourself. That doesn't mean (in most cases) your real name or job title etc. Its just hi/hello......how long you've been lurking, what about UT interests you.
Opening with a post that could certainly be read as anti-development on a forum that is broadly pro-development is very tough cold open.
From there, may I suggest less use of bold. It has a place, for instance, emphasizing a key point in a post to which you are replying or an article you're discussing, so as to show people your jumping off point. Your use of it reads more as "I am making an emphatic statement for which I have no proof, but because I've bolded it, its unchallengable!"
Its a very assertive way to post. Surely, the point in posting here is not to read your own typing, but to persuade some here, on a forum full of influential folks, many tied to the development process in one fashion or another to lean-in to support your cause, or at least not lean the other way.
To do that, you need spend a bit more time mustering evidence in support of a credible argument. To be clear, if you're a regular lurker here, you'll know I sometimes hold contrarian positions to the majority (but usually ending up bringing them on side) and regardless, I'm happy to entertain contrarian views.
But you need to bring the substance to support them.
****
Let me help you a bit.......just for the sake of good discussion.
Why is any tall building too tall?
There are potential arguments. These may revolve around any or all of the following:
1) Insufficient infrastructure or services to support the new development (electricity, water/sewer, transit/roads, parks, childcare, school capacity) etc. If you want to use this argument, you need to identify the current capacity of local schools and how many students this developent may bring such that its a problem, or the distance to the nearest park, or how far it is to the nearest current or proposed rapid transit station.
2) The height may cause shadows. Shadows aren't 'evil' but can detract from the enjoyment of a school yard, public park or plaza if they are lengthy, cumulative, or just at the wrong time (example recess or right as school gets out)
Have you looked at the shadow studies to see where the shadows will fall and when?
3) Visual coherence/context/planned context. ie, this will stand out like a sore thumb, this one you do offer some discussion of precedent for.......but here's the thing....is seeing a skyscraper in the distance really something that adversely affects you or your neighbours? I'm going to suggest the answer is 'no'. So....what were' really discussing is how it looks when you're walking by, or across the street. Here, there is a way to 'hide' height by using a podium or base building that meets the street at a height most would find reasonable, typically 3-5 floors, with the towers set-back by several meters from the roofline such that you don't even notice when you're walking by, and only tangentially make note of from across the street. So a discussion on this point is better focused on massing (the way the buildings are shaped and organized rather than height).
****
I think there's always room to question a proposal or plan on any level, pretty much, for any reason, but its hard to have that discussion if your position isn't well fleshed out and evidence-based.
Last edited:
Northern Light
Superstar
His posts on this issue need some work if they are meant to engage people constructively. But reflexively labeling another person's opposition to 40s as Nimby isn't really helpful, in UT parlance, that's pretty insulting, and isn't constructive either. How about reacting by asking a question instead "Why is 40 storeys excessive at this location?" and then a follow up "What maximum height would be reasonable and why?"
Northern Light
Superstar
Councillor Colle is well past his Best Before date....
I wouldn't have an issue if he put forward some substantive critiques of how the proposal here could be better......but 'save it because its a plaza or you hate 'condos' is not such an argument. There are ways to secure opportunities to retain successful local business here, by looking at retail layouts, prospective rents, phasing and relocation assistance. No one is building condos here in the next 2 years anyway, but efforts could be made to secure this as rental or a mixed tenure site.
Last edited:
Koops65
Senior Member
You're right, but he was also opposed to a 10 floor building as well, calling it excessively high. I'll try to be more careful going forward.