scarberiankhatru
Senior Member
If holding out for more office towers means a few fewer Infinitys get built, I don't have a problem with that
If holding out for more office towers means a few fewer Infinitys get built, I don't have a problem with that
Get the damned thing fully developed as quickly as possible...if it means mostly residential, I would hardly call that a negative thing.
Filling up space with anything, be it offices or a Leon's or squat condos like Infinity, for the sake of filling up space, is a positive thing?
In the long run, the Gardiner/rail-lands are not helped by hurrying up and building as many condos as possible before the current boom ends to fill up the space. With their worrying about future office space, it seems the city is giving a damn about where condos go and not letting the market boss them around...people will buy any condo, anywhere in the city, after all, so the city simply does not need to allow so many so close to Union station.
It all depends on what's in the Official Plan and Secondary Plans. It's very common for a property designated residential to be right beside a property that's designated mixed use or commercial. In the case of the railway lands, the whole area is designated mixed use, but only a handful of properties immediately to the south, east, and west of Union Station are identified as a commercial extension of the financial district. The rest was always intended to be residential.It's kinda hypocritical for the city to be worried about doling over too much land to residential uses here when they freely approve projects with solely residential uses on other well-located sites. If a great office site is going to go residential, it should make good use of the property, like 300 Front West, and not be a waste of cladding, like putrid Infinity. I'm glad they're acknowledging or worrying about office space, though there will always be future opportunities for new buildings. There's plenty of short aging office buildings downtown that will be replaced by skyscrapers if all the redevelopable shacks and parking lots are soon eaten up.
Like I said, that property was designated for residential. There would have been studies figuring out how much land was needed for office buildings, and land designated accordingly. Just curious, how do you envision development in the area? I just don't see how you can come to the conclusion that any potential is lost.I don't have a problem with the 16 York proposal - any potential the area had is now lost, so a huge office/residential complex is at least one stroke better than par for the area. Quite a lot of land is being wasted in the area, though; Infinity is probably just the worst example (and it's far from just the design that I'm talking about...but one can't even suggest, for example, that perhaps a certain site should not get built over by condos without being branded as all sorts of things).
You're making it all sound arbitrary when it's anything but. It's all following the Secondary Plan except for 16 York, and that's why 16 York is being held up by Planning.In the long run, the Gardiner/rail-lands are not helped by hurrying up and building as many condos as possible before the current boom ends to fill up the space. With their worrying about future office space, it seems the city is giving a damn about where condos go and not letting the market boss them around...people will buy any condo, anywhere in the city, after all, so the city simply does not need to allow so many so close to Union station.
Don't forget that it's not approved and probably won't be slanted towards residential when it's all said and done.It's simply a case of a large downtown brownfield re-development that had originally been imagined to be mixed-use slanting more towards office, that the market has determined will instead be mixed-use slanted more towards residential.
It's been done before in Toronto's 200 year history and it wouldn't surprise me if in the next 200 years it happens again: the city fills in more of the harbour: more office/industrial space created!
Like I said, that property was designated for residential. There would have been studies figuring out how much land was needed for office buildings, and land designated accordingly. Just curious, how do you envision development in the area? I just don't see how you can come to the conclusion that any potential is lost.
You're making it all sound arbitrary when it's anything but. It's all following the Secondary Plan except for 16 York, and that's why 16 York is being held up by Planning.
In the long run, the Gardiner/rail-lands are not helped by hurrying up and building as many condos as possible before the current boom ends to fill up the space.
I don't think anyone on the forum thinks that.Lots of people on this forum - but not me - think Toronto's "finished" except for the condos that need to get built on every remaining bit of land.
How about some suggestions? Yes, Infinity is horrid at street level but what else? Seriously, I'd be interested in what you think should be in this area. As for the plans, I'm sure the planning reports are available to look at if you really doubt them.What was the potential for the most valuable blocks of land in the entire city, between a stadium and an arena, right next to both a highway and Union station, immediately adjacent to both the waterfront and the CBD? Uh, how about anything? Plans may have slated most of the area for condos, but who says the plans are worth the paper they're printed on?
It's about 3 times farther than 16 York. Residential would increase diversity in that area, which is all commercial. That's never a bad thing.300 Front is one block farther, not "quite a bit," and it's already surrounded by office buildings. I also said it'd be a great site for a hotel or an institution or anything else. But a condo will fill the space quicker, which is what some people want.