News   Aug 30, 2024
 3.2K     2 
News   Aug 30, 2024
 3.1K     1 
News   Aug 30, 2024
 681     0 

Too Many Condos?

hawc

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jun 28, 2011
Messages
2,735
Reaction score
6,187
Location
Cabbagetown
Is it possible to have too many condos in the downtown core? If we continue to pull down historical buildings to put up condo after condo do we risk destroying the very neighbourhood character that the condo developers sell to potential buyers. Do we just end up with a neighbourhood of condos, but not much else.

Please prove me wrong! What am I missing here.
 
Is it possible to have too many condos in the downtown core? If we continue to pull down historical buildings to put up condo after condo do we risk destroying the very neighbourhood character that the condo developers sell to potential buyers. Do we just end up with a neighbourhood of condos, but not much else.

Please prove me wrong! What am I missing here.

No, I don't necessarily think so. Does Manhattan have too many apartments, condos, and co-ops?

The key for the core is that it continue to add commercial/office for small, medium, and large companies and (as much as possible) light industrial space so that people live, work, and play in the same space. With the added density of people living downtown, it also means that mass transit becomes more viable and more useful.

The city needs a variety of uses to remain vibrant. Hopefully the western waterfront will get some more uses besides just residential. At least Waterfront Toronto has done an excellent job with their plans and making sure that there will be a variety of uses in Bayside, the West Don Lands, and the Port Lands.
 
As Vancouver exemplifies......yes.
In Vancouver's myopic resolve to build condos and residential development it has now found itself in a position where there is no new land to develop whether that be into commercial, office, entertainment, or cultural buildings. The is very low vacancies of office space downtown Vancouver despite having a relatively small head office economy because there is almost no where to build any new towers.
This is the same with cultural and entertainment buildings as they usually require large amounts of land so building them downtown is a near impossibility. High rise condos and residential development are part of a vibrant downtown but Vancouver went to the extreme and has greatly inhibited any kind of development except that. The city also wanted nothing but high rise residential so it lost many historical buildings and the number of actual houses in the downtown core could be counted on your hands and toes. It has also left the city with a very sterile urban enviornment where glass, steel, and concrete are the only urban forms to be found.
It is also having adverse effects on transportation. Due to the ridiculous cost of land and almost no development land left office towers are sprouting up in the suburbs but not downtown. Lots of people living downtown that have to leave downtown for work. This is bad news for an already decentralized employment enviornment.
 
Is it possible to have too many condos in the downtown core? If we continue to pull down historical buildings to put up condo after condo do we risk destroying the very neighbourhood character that the condo developers sell to potential buyers. Do we just end up with a neighbourhood of condos, but not much else.

Please prove me wrong! What am I missing here.

You can definitely have too many condos to the point where the city's heritage is destroyed and it feels as if it's only 50 years old at most, as though it was some provincial backwater until a couple of decades ago. That sort of development trend represents a step backwards. There's also the functional issue of not having much diversity in demographics or uses of land, making for less vibrant communities.

But if you assume that's what's happening, then you can be proven wrong. After all, the kind of gratuitous demolition of fine heritage buildings that characterized the 1950s through early 1970s for new development is no longer prevalent. Some developers like the late Paul Oberman made advancements in the development industry in terms of harnessing development to better preserve heritage. A lot more preservation is happening today, even if some mistakes have happened. This era has been characterized by the disappearance of surface parking lots, not great heritage buildings.

The city still has plenty of unremarkable sites that can be developed. So it's definitely possible to have too much development, but it's not a troubling concern right now in Toronto as we're in a position to steer clear of the problems associated with it. Furthermore, the development of 50 years ago downtown was too focused on single-use commercial buildings with the flawed assumption that the modern city would have most people living in garden city suburbs and commuting downtown; the condos today are filling the residential gap of that era of development.

No, I don't necessarily think so. Does Manhattan have too many apartments, condos, and co-ops?

The key for the core is that it continue to add commercial/office for small, medium, and large companies and (as much as possible) light industrial space so that people live, work, and play in the same space. With the added density of people living downtown, it also means that mass transit becomes more viable and more useful.

The city needs a variety of uses to remain vibrant

So essentially, yes, you can have too many condos if downtown districts and neighbourhoods start to become too residential, but it's not that big of a concern right now. Still, it's important to keep these ideas in mind so that if we end up on that path, we can stop in time. There comes a time when neighbourhoods won't be suitable for much development, because their built form and uses will be deemed to be the way we like without room for improvement. Then development slows down to a crawl because it wouldn't serve any positive purpose to the city, and we enjoy that area as an achievement of our city.
 
FWIW, my anecdotal experience over the past 10 years is that areas remain boring/interesting no matter the level of condo intrusion. If anything, areas that were interesting before the condo boom actually got better with the addition of condos, such as King/Sherbourne, King/Spadina, Yorkville, St. Lawrence, etc. There are condo dead zones, to be sure: Wellington street west, Bay street north of College, the western Harbourfront, etc., but these places were always dead.

I'm not overly concerned about condos crowding out office development opportunities. So far, few condos have popped up on land that is a huge loss to the commercial real estate market. Most of that land is in the financial district, and the condos that we've seen built there are on extremely tight pieces of land that no commercial property owner would have taken any risk to develop. 1 King West, Trump, that weird site on Sheppard avenue that keeps changing hands, Backstage and the L tower are all incredibly small and risky sites to develop and we should be thankful that anything is being built there at all, let alone tall towers and, in one case, an architectural masterpiece.

My only beef with the condo boom has been that there have been some questionable facadectomies and that I wish there was some variety to the generic Clewes box. However I must stress that in both cases, the commercial property market has been a bigger threat. Their buildings are worse than generic: they're fat and featureless, and they have an equal, or possibly worse, track record at sacrificing heritage buildings to the scourge of facadism.
 
My beef with the condo boom is large chunks of downtown land, used almost exclusively, as residential neighbourhoods. I'm talking about areas like Cityplace, Fort York and maybe even West Don Lands. These areas create dead zones in the central core and give very little back to the city. They fill up all the land with condos, so there is no land left to build things like cinemas, museums, art galleries, concert venues, amusement areas, retail, offices or anything else useful to Torontonians. (Basically, all the things people walk to see) Once the land is developed, opportunities to create animation are usually gone. You end up with quiet, lifeless, deserted districts right in the downtown of the city. These areas should have been better planned by the city, to include a good mix of uses.

I'm afraid West Don Lands might be much the same, after the circus of the Pan-Am Games is gone. It's seems to be a tightly packed area of mid-rise residential, with a smattering of retail but not much else. (besides a park) I want to see more urban, mixed downtown districts with entertainment, tourist attractions, public squares and all the things that make great cites great.
 
Last edited:
How is the 'dead zone' that CityPlace creates any different from say another similarly sized residential area? Take the area between College and Harbord for instance, from Bathurst to Dovercourt. That, by your definition, is a big 'dead zone' of nothing bust residential homes as soon as you get away from the restaurants on College. CityPlace is surrounded by action on all four sides just as the College neighbourhood is. It's not an island surrounded by nothing, it borders up against Wellington & King (once you get across the tracks) harbourfront and the SkyDome. It's always plenty busy with thousands of people walking through it. Probably busier than a typical downtown residential neighbourhood which you could also call a 'dead zone' Would you try and put stores in the bottom level of all the homes going up Palmerston? Of course not.
 
No, I don't necessarily think so. Does Manhattan have too many apartments, condos, and co-ops?

The key for the core is that it continue to add commercial/office for small, medium, and large companies and (as much as possible) light industrial space so that people live, work, and play in the same space. With the added density of people living downtown, it also means that mass transit becomes more viable and more useful.

The city needs a variety of uses to remain vibrant. Hopefully the western waterfront will get some more uses besides just residential. At least Waterfront Toronto has done an excellent job with their plans and making sure that there will be a variety of uses in Bayside, the West Don Lands, and the Port Lands.

Excellent comments. If there is any drawback to the strong growth downtown in recent years, it is that commercial development has not fully kept up with residential, and it would be nice to see a few more office buildings, live-work units, etc. But no, there are not "too many condos". If and when there get to be "too many", the market will make that determination, well before the planners.
 
How is the 'dead zone' that CityPlace creates any different from say another similarly sized residential area? Take the area between College and Harbord for instance, from Bathurst to Dovercourt. That, by your definition, is a big 'dead zone' of nothing bust residential homes as soon as you get away from the restaurants on College. CityPlace is surrounded by action on all four sides just as the College neighbourhood is. It's not an island surrounded by nothing, it borders up against Wellington & King (once you get across the tracks) harbourfront and the SkyDome. It's always plenty busy with thousands of people walking through it. Probably busier than a typical downtown residential neighbourhood which you could also call a 'dead zone' Would you try and put stores in the bottom level of all the homes going up Palmerston? Of course not.

It's not!

The area you mentioned was developed long before the downtown core started to expand past Bathurst. If it was undeveloped, would it be developed the same way in 2011? Of course not. We have become a big city and a fast growing one at that. Our downtown core is now reaching over to Duffrin, so it should be developed like a real downtown, with as much animation as possible. All my favourite cities have huge downtown cores with culture, shopping and entertainment, in all areas. That's what I want for Toronto, a thriving, exciting, creative core that is full of life.

Cityplace is one of my least favourite places to walk in downtown Toronto, so of course, I would not want that kind of development to spread all over the core. I just disagree with putting suburban, residential neighbourhoods, in a central core. I'm sure it will get better when things are finished there but in general, I just think it's another missed opportunity to animate the street, provide more jobs, create a tourist friendly area and provide streets that feel safe and lively. I'm talking about what was built in Cityplace, not the surrounding streets. Yes, I know King Street is animated but some of that animation could have been used in the dullsville of Cityplace.
 
It's not!

The area you mentioned was developed long before the downtown core started to expand past Bathurst. If it was undeveloped, would it be developed the same way in 2011? Of course not. We have become a big city and a fast growing one at that. Our downtown core is now reaching over to Duffrin, so it should be developed like a real downtown, with as much animation as possible. All my favourite cities have huge downtown cores with culture, shopping and entertainment, in all areas. That's what I want for Toronto, a thriving, exciting, creative core that is full of life.

Cityplace is one of my least favourite places to walk in downtown Toronto, so of course, I would not want that kind of development to spread all over the core. I just disagree with putting suburban, residential neighbourhoods, in a central core. I'm sure it will get better when things are finished there but in general, I just think it's another missed opportunity to animate the street, provide more jobs, create a tourist friendly area and provide streets that feel safe and lively. I'm talking about what was built in Cityplace, not the surrounding streets. Yes, I know King Street is animated but some of that animation could have been used in the dullsville of Cityplace.

Cityplace is not suburban. It just isn't a destination. It has its own supermarket everyone walks to, a pretty good coffee shop, all the banks, a new shawarma place is opening up in Spadina, and a Fox and Fiddle is soon to come in front of the Sobeys. I don't think you can call a community where so many people walk to their banks, groceries, and coffee 'suburban'. The amount of retail is probably similar to what you find in most residential areas in NYC.

http://maps.google.ca/maps?q=ny&hl=...d=bbpC-Bu8vh5zG0N-Ybtqew&cbp=12,29.12,,0,-2.3

Is that suburban, too?
 
When 80% of CityPlace residents walk around WITHOUT a car, it's just ignorant to compare it the suburbs. It's just as much a lively neighbourhood as any other downtown neighbourhood. Less families and kids, but so what? It's a seven minute walk to King and Bay for heaven's sakes.
 
When 80% of CityPlace residents walk around WITHOUT a car, it's just ignorant to compare it the suburbs. It's just as much a lively neighbourhood as any other downtown neighbourhood. Less families and kids, but so what? It's a seven minute walk to King and Bay for heaven's sakes.

I'm not saying the location isn't urban. That's exactly my point, this is very much a downtown, urban neighbourhood, which is why I wanted it to look, feel and function, as a part of downtown. I'm not talking about height or density, when I say it feels suburban. I'm talking about how it meets the street. (the way it feels) It feels very isolated in parts, for a downtown area.

Cityplace was designed so that Fort York Blvd would function as its main street/thoroughfare. That's why it was designed wide enough for streetcars. It's just natural that Fort York Blvd would have been used as the main commercial and social heart of the community. That whole area would have been so much more animated, lively, interesting and safe, if it was. I just think there were bad zoning and design choices made here. I blame both the city and Concord. They both missed a great opportunity to bring people, jobs and fun, to an area that needs it.

The park (Canoe Landing) just doesn't cut it as a social centre. People are too segregated into distant sections, with dog walkers here and soccer players there. There is very little interaction. It feels very un-urban and not lively at all, even on warm, summer days. I was just there today (sunday afternoon) and it felt very segregated. There is not even a central meeting place in the park. New York could teach us a lesson, in that regard. Parks there always have a central, social core for interacting with fellow New Yorkers. Our parks usually lack that design feature.

I see certain similarities between Cityplace and St. Jamestown. St. Jamestown is also a high-density, downtown neighbourhood with tall buildings and a few retail spaces here and there. It also has many residents who walk to work or use public transit. In that regard, it's quite urban. The problem is St. Jamestown has no central core where retail and social activities come together. It's isolated and cut off from much of the city. It is different from CP, in that way and it's more of a "towers in the park" development. If St. Jamestown had a main street lined with retail, services and cafes, where people could socialize, it would have been a much more successful development. Of course, the social housing and poverty play a big role but they were not a part of this development when it was first built. I think that came much later. Take away those towers in the park bullshit and throw in some interesting retail/services on the ground level and this neighbourhood might have had a chance.

It's not rocket science. If you look at the cities people most visit, they ALL have streets lined with retail, coffee shops, nightclubs, theatres and more. Europe seems to know how to do this best. I guess it's no surprise that London and Paris are the role models for me. I lived there for almost 6 months and I just felt so comfortable with this type of urban environment. Of course, the scale of London and Paris is quite different than Cityplace or SJT but the same principles apply. Hell, it even applies to small town Ontario's main streets. Tightly packed retail almost always works. Tiny bits of retail, here and there, just doesn't cut it.

And as for Spadina, the part south of Front Street, is basically a highway ramp. It is NOT a good place for retail, outdoor cafes or restaurants. There is much too much traffic for it to ever become a good retail strip or a meeting place. People walk quickly, to get off that car-chocked street, so a Shwarma restaurant may provide a useful service but it will do nothing to animate the street. The banks only KILL the animation, they are the worst.

For me, it's ALL about the animation and creating safe, lively, walkable, interesting districts, that give as much back to the city, as they take. One of the saddest things I find about Toronto, is all the lost opportunities for good design. We have the potential, towers going up everywhere, yet so many times, we end up with another lost opportunity. Once it's lost, it's frequently, lost forever. (or a really long time) I don't want to keep seeing lost opportunities in this city. I want to see development that makes me smile, when I walk by it.

One last note, YES, I know Cityplace is NOT finished and I do have hope a retail strip or something else interesting, will develop along Fort York Blvd. I just wish it was designed into the buildings originally, as it would have been so much better than converting what's there now. I don't hate Cityplace, I just think we need to do better.

(MUCH BETTER!)
 
Last edited:

Back
Top