News   Nov 29, 2024
Feds Match $758 Million Investments for New Line 2 Subway Trains
 901     0 
News   Nov 29, 2024
Looking Back on a Year of Construction at Amexon's Central Park
 359     0 
News   Nov 29, 2024
33-Storey St Catharines Tower Would Retain Masonic Temple
 673     1 

East York-Old East York

I agree that it is a question of scale. City planning exercises can often hew towards good politics more than good planning, which is often why they are so vulnerable. I have not reviewed the planning instrument(s) here, so I cannot specifically comment on what the City has planned for Broadview, but even if everyone agrees on mid-rise development, there can be sharp divides on what that means and how it is implemented. I don't think that developers typically feel that there are no reasonable limits (that's not my experience), but it is not uncommon for unsophisticated landowners (i.e. not developers) to have unrealistic expectations as to the value of their land and how it can be developed.

I might be the minority here, but I don't see a tower in the low 20 storeys to be unreasonable for the Estonian House site, but I say that without even having looked at shadow plans. As a city, we are far to focused on height, and we typically ignore/f*ck up all the other important components. The heritage resources on that site make any redevelopment quite a challenge, height aside, and it might mean that the height has to be deployed in a spot on the site and in a manner that has unacceptable impacts.
 
Re. the Estonian House Well, for one thing, there's the Chester School, 1890 as we have discussed. The other is, the lot stretches along the backyards of 2-story houses on Chester Hill Road. This would be disruptive for many reasons. It would also tower over Tordmorden Mills below.

Anyway, does Toronto need another tall slab on a teeny lot? Both developers were talking 200+ units. More glass boxes in a decidedly family area.

(This "avenue" plan is also slotted for Pape, by the way.)

I really don't understand this apparent lack of imagination, especially given the impact on infrastructure, transit, schools, etc.

When I go to Montreal (and other European cities) with much higher densities than Toronto, I see entire streets, avenues, boulevards etc. with 2 and 3 and even 4 bedroom condos.

Washington DC 's U Street area, now undergoing gentrification with older buildings, apartments and industrial, being converted condos. There are rules about retail at ground level, setbacks (lots of patios!), street furniture etc.

2961905248_f9506ec44f.jpg


Montreal's St-Henri district, once probably the poorest working class neighbourhood in in the city, older than most of Toronto and formerly also industrial, now one of the trendiest areas undergoing renewal in town. (Setbacks here can be difficult because many of the streets are narrow.)

logo_photo52.jpg


19~v~LE__MN__PHASE_I__ACCES_CONDOS_MONTREAL.jpg


and, below, Outremont, one of many areas where old meets new.

6985834894_b090e6c78b_b.jpg
 
I'm not disagreeing with the appeal of mid-rise development. Although as with high-rise, Toronto fixates on height of mid-rises and typically f*cks up the other major elements.

But there is a place for towers as well, and I don't really the understand the hysteria about tall buildings in some quarters of this city. Tall, slender building with excellent design can, and do, often have less adverse impact than a mid-rise in terms of shadow and overlook. I don't think whether Toronto needs another tall slab on a teeny lot is the right way to look at it. The question is whether we can design something beautiful without undue adverse impacts. And it's not a lack of imagination that leads us to towers, but huge land costs and the common sense of locating more density near higher order transit and pedestrian shopping areas. The lack of imagination does comes in with design and how buildings address the street, but that's equally applicable to mid-rise where Toronto also routinely fails. As for infrastructure, our inability as a city to invest in our infrastructure will not stop growth, and the alternative is to deploy density where there is even less infrastructure.

And European cities typically achieve more density by not only having mid-rise with more height (this City is timid even with the height of mid-rise, and the Planning department even refuses to refer to buildings whose height exceeds the width of the street as mid-rise), but by not having two-storey homes near thoroughfares likes Broadview. So, yes, a European-style mid-rise on the Estonian House site might (emphasis on "might") have fewer builtform impacts on those two-storey homes on Chester Hill Road, but those homes would likely not be two-storey homes in Europe anyway. And, historically, nearby homeowners will usually react the same way to a mid-rise proposal as they would a 24-storey building. Get out the pitchforks.

Also, this city generally makes it as difficult to build a seven-storey building as it does a 37-storey building. When the City does planning exercises for Avenues like Broadview, there is a lot of talk about encouraging mid-rise development, but inevitably the city fails to walk the walk, the plans get picked at by thousands of hungry little birds during the public consultation process, and the resulting zoning is so full of restrictions that the mid-rise it allows is often not economically feasible. So developers often ignore those plans. If this city were serious about mid-rise, it needs to do a much better job than it is doing. If they pre-zoned with realistic plans, you would see more owners taking advantage of those as-of-right opportunities. If neighbourhoods want mid-rise, they need to get serious, and stop squawking about every 5-storey proposal.
 
I defer to your wider expertise and apparent experience, Skeezix. This ain't my ballpark of knowledge. That said, the public consultation process ended. City council voted. Two developers for the site caved. It's the current owners -- i.e. the Estonian House community, along with two others -- who are appealing.

http://www1.toronto.ca/wps/portal/contentonly?vgnextoid=c297966a1f075410VgnVCM10000071d60f89RCRD

P.S. All these areas mentioned above (U-Street, Outremont, St. Henri etc.) are filled with two and three-storey Victorian homes
 
Oh, no doubt. Like I said in my first post, the heritage resources on the site make it complicated.

I wasn't referring to Montreal or DC in my last post. Just the reference to European cities having higher densities (but they don't have as much of the low-rise development). Montreal has largely the same densities as Toronto, and I assume DC is in the same ballpark.
 
Montreal has changed quite a bit in that there has been a lot of off-island sprawl to the north and south shores. Everybody wants their little detached with a pool-sized backyard, right?

But I am guessing the former city of Montreal (pre-amalgamation) is much denser than the former city of Toronto. All those duplexes, triplexes, fourplexes and walk-ups have had people living on top of each other -- but not in highrises -- since the turn of the last century, if not before.
 
I did some googling and, as I suspected, Montreal used to more dense until the post-Pill early 70s when, I expect, Baby Boomers started having families and buying up houses in newly-built subdivisions. Meanwhile, Toronto was growing and, while there was sprawl, there was highrise and midrise development which never really happened in Montreal until the past decade or so when all the children of those exurban Baby Boomers wanted to move into the city where the action is.

https://www.mqup.ca/blog/montreal-more/
https://www.mqup.ca/blog/montreal-more/
http://spacing.ca/montreal/2007/12/09/montreal-population-density-since-1971/
 
I can see the Salvation Army's Center for new moms staying, but the Estonian Centre has two failed condo highrises developments under their belt, so they should be careful what they ask for. Whistlers has nice beer signs to look at while waiting for the red light to change.
 
Last edited:
Greek world is moving from the danforth around the corner to pape village next week..pape and cosburn i think. Also noticed what appears to be a new greek childrens clothing store opened on the corner of pape and sammon.
 
I decided to check out Pho Challenge on Pape for lunch but it was closed (open later in the day, I guess.) But next door, I saw that a Filipino place had open. Tiny, dark, with some shelves filled with various packaged goods on the right (I had no time to check them out) and, on the left, an open kitchen with trays and trays of hot food. Prices on th wall for various combos seemed dirt cheap.

I grabbed three Bratwurst-sized fried veggie spring rolls, and they were AMAZING, stuffed with carrots, some dark greens and, I suppose, carrots. A loonie each. Wish I bought more.

Interesting how Pape is turning out to be a diverse food area, with Greek and European delis and bakeries, souvlaki and more joints, etc. It's all good, IMO.
 
It's remarkable how well the infill townhouses at the SW corner of Pape and Mortimer have aged. I believe they were built in 1999? I recall Chris Hume writing a piece on the development in the 00s about how urbane and dignified the townhouses were.
 
mjl08 said:
It's remarkable how well the infill townhouses at the SW corner of Pape and Mortimer have aged. I believe they were built in 1999? I recall Chris Hume writing a piece on the development in the 00s about how urbane and dignified the townhouses were.
Click to expand...

Oh I am pretty sure they were built before then because I recall a friend living there I think in 1998. He is a professional and kept his office on the ground floor. But they were brand new then. And you are correct about how well they have "aged." If only every development respected their neighbourhood as much.
 
I agree with both of you, @mjl08 and @Ex-Montreal Girl . It has aged well, and it is a real asset for the neighbourhood. I think Agnes McPhail Square is somewhat less successful (although it does look nicer in the summer months when flowers are in bloom), although it isn't bad. The Square is pushing 20 years, so it may be that it just needs a bit of a refresh.
 
Skeezix said:
I agree with both of you, @mjl08 and @Ex-Montreal Girl . It has aged well, and it is a real asset for the neighbourhood. I think Agnes McPhail Square is somewhat less successful (although it does look nicer in the summer months when flowers are in bloom), although it isn't bad. The Square is pushing 20 years, so it may be that it just needs a bit of a refresh.
Click to expand...

I always thought "East York Ave." was a peculiar street name. I imagine the naming process was in the wake of the Mega City, where East Yorkers held leftover bitterness.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top