Toronto 656 Danforth Avenue | 160.73m | 49s | Del Boca Vista | Studio JCI

[jxmyth_]

That diagram is horrendous, but Pape & Danforth is gonna be the transit equivalent of Yonge & Bloor so…

I grew up in East York and spent a lifetime on the Danforth. The changes in Canada’s only Borough (former) have been fascinating to see over the decades. First off, yeah- cars killed the Danforth. Post war expansion around Eglinton with industrial and commercial development brought folks north instead of to Danforth, Ford moving to Oakville created Shoppers World Danforth (home of the original Shoppers Drug Mart) which brought folks back to the strip but not to the small shops- so east of Pape was downhill for many decades after. Pape had its enclave status that built a marketable culture, but that’s been lost the last twenty years as Greek families cashed out for the burbs.

There could still be a renaissance for the street, but it won’t be with 50 storey towers. Alas here we are. Thing I don’t get, and I’m sure there are numbers to tell me otherwise, but 10-20yrs ago, it wasn’t uncommon for Broadview, Coxwell or Woodbine platforms to be crammed during rush hour. So it never felt like the lack of density gave the stations Bessarion type numbers.

Will the Crosstown and Ontario Line balance things out by lessening demand on Don Mills, O’Connor, Vic Park and Flemingdon bus lines? Enough to counter the cavern of towers across the east?

Personally, I wish they’d kibosh this tower and strike a deal to mass develop from Broadview to Vic Park with a mandatory 6-10 storeys ON Danforth and your 20-40 just behind that. Go wall up Pape with towers, but be reasonable about the Danny.

 

[Northern Light]

That diagram is horrendous, but Pape & Danforth is gonna be the transit equivalent of Yonge & Bloor so…

I grew up in East York and spent a lifetime on the Danforth.

@jsmith77 you're only middle aged, shhh about this lifetime nonsense!

The changes in Canada’s only Borough (former) have been fascinating to see over the decades. First off, yeah- cars killed the Danforth. Post war expansion around Eglinton with industrial and commercial development brought folks north instead of to Danforth, Ford moving to Oakville created Shoppers World Danforth (home of the original Shoppers Drug Mart) which brought folks back to the strip but not to the small shops- so east of Pape was downhill for many decades after. Pape had its enclave status that built a marketable culture, but that’s been lost the last twenty years as Greek families cashed out for the burbs.

I agree w/the history; though I'm not sure the marketing has been lost; though, perhaps under exploited. I think people still think of the neighbourhood as Greek, even though its residential composition is certainly not dominated by that cultural group anymore.

But the restos are still disproportionately Greek and still busy.........and Taste of the Danforth is such a hit it nearly chokes on itself.

It reminds me, curiously, of one of my now lost favourite pizza spots, Gerrard Pizza, which long ago relocated to Danforth near Coxwell, but closed in the last couple of years.

The family was Italian, and the older generations worked the place w/the younger right til' the end; but they had long ago decamped to York Region, and were commuting every day........

It can be done, if the numbers are there for the businesses.

There could still be a renaissance for the street, but it won’t be with 50 storey towers. Alas here we are. Thing I don’t get, and I’m sure there are numbers to tell me otherwise, but 10-20yrs ago, it wasn’t uncommon for Broadview, Coxwell or Woodbine platforms to be crammed during rush hour. So it never felt like the lack of density gave the stations Bessarion type numbers.

The stations with rare exception (Chester) have never had Bessarion type numbers. They have been fueled by N-S routes which serve those stations and have very solid traffic levels. The idea that Line 2 is somehow under-used because there aren't towers on Danforth is non-sense; in fact, Line 2 is quickly approaching capacity. (pre-pandemic) and presumably will again shortly.

That's not an argument against density on the Danforth, but rather a suggestion that we need to be honest and clear about what we are trying to achieve. More traffic on Line 2 really isn't it.

Will the Crosstown and Ontario Line balance things out by lessening demand on Don Mills, O’Connor, Vic Park and Flemingdon bus lines? Enough to counter the cavern of towers across the east?

Not in the medium term, not with tens of thousands of units coming to Golden Mile and to Don Mills/Eg. The Crosstown will help, the O/L will too; but we''ll be lucky if they keep pace w/growth in the near term.

Personally, I wish they’d kibosh this tower and strike a deal to mass develop from Broadview to Vic Park with a mandatory 6-10 storeys ON Danforth and your 20-40 just behind that. Go wall up Pape with towers, but be reasonable about the Danny.

I don't see that as practical; but I endorse the spirit of what you're saying, gentle intensification of the Danforth by which we broadly mean between 2x - 3x the current density is necessary and useful. But the manner of doing that need not be a dozen mega-towers, when it could be three or four dozen buildings in the 6-10s range.

I think that's the better approach on the whole, though some taller towers at key nodes, including this one, should be fine............though the ask here is pretty steep, and the form/massing needs work irrespective of the approved height.

 

[Kenojuak]

There could still be a renaissance for the street, but it won’t be with 50 storey towers. Alas here we are.

But... why not? This is a way to quickly infuse local retail, services, public spaces and the community with hundreds of new customers and community members. Why is a tall building on a small footprint incompatible with a "renaissance" of the street? I would argue that demolishing an entire block or two to do the same number of new homes in a bunch of midrise buildings would actually be much worse for the street, taking out dozens of existing retailers, apartments, etc., as compared to this small compact site with no apartment demolition, etc.

Personally, I wish they’d kibosh this tower and strike a deal to mass develop from Broadview to Vic Park with a mandatory 6-10 storeys ON Danforth and your 20-40 just behind that. Go wall up Pape with towers, but be reasonable about the Danny.

I'm sorry but I have to call a spade a spade. It is a classic NIMBY move to say "well we wouldn't need this if we just..." -- but the fact is, there is no deal or plan to do what you say above. The City has limited growth here for generations with restrictive policies and are still doing it with nonsense like batch heritage designations and restrictive angular planes. We live in the world we live in, which has seen almost zero new housing or building on the Danforth in the 56 years (!!!) since Line 2 opened. This is the kind of application that will pop up to fill the void.

Build it.

 

[Bjays92]

But... why not? This is a way to quickly infuse local retail, services, public spaces and the community with hundreds of new customers and community members. Why is a tall building on a small footprint incompatible with a "renaissance" of the street? I would argue that demolishing an entire block or two to do the same number of new homes in a bunch of midrise buildings would actually be much worse for the street, taking out dozens of existing retailers, apartments, etc., as compared to this small compact site with no apartment demolition, etc.



I'm sorry but I have to call a spade a spade. It is a classic NIMBY move to say "well we wouldn't need this if we just..." -- but the fact is, there is no deal or plan to do what you say above. The City has limited growth here for generations with restrictive policies and are still doing it with nonsense like batch heritage designations and restrictive angular planes. We live in the world we live in, which has seen almost zero new housing or building on the Danforth in the 56 years (!!!) since Line 2 opened. This is the kind of application that will pop up to fill the void.

Build it.

I'm sorry but I'm going to have to agree with a lot of the other voices here, this simply isn't an appropriate proposal.

The very fact that you describe heritage designations as nonsense shows that you are also not making a good faith argument being in favour of this tower. It is not inherently nimbyism to want to preserve certain neighbourhoods, nor is it nimbyism to want to have different areas of the city with different feels.

Danforth needs work, but it has charm that would be lost with massive streetwalls of 50+ story buildings. Plenty of European cities achieve incredible density with only midrises. One of Toronto's biggest problems, which you can see when looking at photos of downtown, it goes from 200m buildings to single detached homes two streets over. Pop up clusters all over the GTA is not the only solution to our housing problems.

 

[egotrippin]

I'm sorry but I'm going to have to agree with a lot of the other voices here, this simply isn't an appropriate proposal.

The very fact that you describe heritage designations as nonsense shows that you are also not making a good faith argument being in favour of this tower. It is not inherently nimbyism to want to preserve certain neighbourhoods, nor is it nimbyism to want to have different areas of the city with different feels.

Danforth needs work, but it has charm that would be lost with massive streetwalls of 50+ story buildings. Plenty of European cities achieve incredible density with only midrises. One of Toronto's biggest problems, which you can see when looking at photos of downtown, it goes from 200m building to single detached homes two streets over. Pop up clusters all over the GTA is not the only solution to our housing problems.

You pretty much took the words out of my mouth. Clusters of highrises crammed together just don't create a very pleasant environment. Besides, if we're arguing for 50 storeys here for the sake of more housing, why stop there? Why not, 60, 70, even 80 storeys? There's a balance to be had.

 

[Lenser]

I agree that aggressive mid-rise is the primary way to go along the Danforth, but at the same time I hardly expect that green-lighting this development will spur on the creation of similar towers all along the Danforth. I just don't see it going that way - at least not for many years yet. The Euro densification model makes a lot of sense though.

 

[SashaLemon]

How much more expensive does it make a high-rise to preserve heritage facades? Assuming you preserve the same square footage for local businesses, it's a way to preserve the fine-grained urban fabric that currently exists. You would not do it to every single lot, but probably a lot of them along this stretch.

The stations with rare exception (Chester) have never had Bessarion type numbers. They have been fueled by N-S routes which serve those stations and have very solid traffic levels. The idea that Line 2 is somehow under-used because there aren't towers on Danforth is non-sense; in fact, Line 2 is quickly approaching capacity. (pre-pandemic) and presumably will again shortly.

That's not an argument against density on the Danforth, but rather a suggestion that we need to be honest and clear about what we are trying to achieve. More traffic on Line 2 really isn't it.

Automatic Train Control will come to Line 2 eventually, and probably new trains to be able to actually use ATC. (If we were really ambitious we would aim for PSDs too but whatever.)
I don't know how much the OL and Line 5 will help or hinder capacity on the line. I wanted there to be a more obvious lower E-W route that would make a good candidate for another line that could also be intensified. Trying to extend the St. Clair streetcar past Deer Park and make into an LRT would not work since there is not a great way to keep going east. (O'Connor Dr? Ridiculous.) Upgraded LRT on Gerrard St? Nope. Lakeshore East RER with more stations? Yeah that has the biggest potential since it's already happening to an extent. Of course we know about East Harbour already, but imagine a station at Gerrard and an intensification you could have there. Build over the Greenwood yard and put another station there. Intensify at the existing Danforth Station. Put a new one at Birchmount Rd too.

Pray for the day we upgrade our streetcar lines to "LRT"s. (North American for "a modern tram in a right-of-way".)

 

[Lenser]

Separate right-of-way is indeed the way to go. Whether we'll ever get there or not is another question. Our transit priorities are changing up for the better but the scales keep tipping in favour of the car.

 

[Northern Light]

How much more expensive does it make a high-rise to preserve heritage facades? Assuming you preserve the same square footage for local businesses, it's a way to preserve the fine-grained urban fabric that currently exists. You would not do it to every single lot, but probably a lot of them along this stretch.

Would vary wildly depending on size and condition and how much complexity it adds to construction (ie. saving 2 elevations, but having an open back, with wide construction access is much cheaper than dealing with 3 or 4 facades and/or limited access.

Saving a single, small 2-storey facade, that doesn't require a lot of structural support or restoration work might be 1-2M accretion.

But saving a 4 storey heritage facade on 3 elevations which also requires restoration work would be substantially more.

Though, it's important to note here, those facade often attract buyers/tenants who pay a premium for living behind/above them, which may or may not fully offset the (accretive) cost.

It's important to talk 'accretive' cost, because if you took away the heritage facade, you would still building a new facade in its place that would cost real money. So the question then is how much more.

There are those here at UT who would know those numbers and may or may not be able to share a range publicly.

 

[SashaLemon]

Would vary wildly depending on size and condition and how much complexity it adds to construction (ie. saving 2 elevations, but having an open back, with wide construction access is much cheaper than dealing with 3 or 4 facades and/or limited access.

Saving a single, small 2-storey facade, that doesn't require a lot of structural support or restoration work might be 1-2M accretion.

But saving a 4 storey heritage facade on 3 elevations which also requires restoration work would be substantially more.

Though, it's important to note here, those facade often attract buyers/tenants who pay a premium for living behind/above them, which may or may not fully offset the (accretive) cost.

It's important to talk 'accretive' cost, because if you took away the heritage facade, you would still building a new facade in its place that would cost real money. So the question then is how much more.

There are those here at UT who would know those numbers and may or may not be able to share a range publicly.

Isn't the majority of the Danforth 2s with some 3s?

 

[Northern Light]

Isn't the majority of the Danforth 2s with some 3s?

Yes.

 

[SashaLemon]

Yes.

I guess the issue would be insuring that the "façade" is almost more than a façade, and actually retain the same character of business that operated in it when it was an actual building.

 

[jxmyth_]

But... why not? This is a way to quickly infuse local retail, services, public spaces and the community with hundreds of new customers and community members. Why is a tall building on a small footprint incompatible with a "renaissance" of the street? I would argue that demolishing an entire block or two to do the same number of new homes in a bunch of midrise buildings would actually be much worse for the street, taking out dozens of existing retailers, apartments, etc., as compared to this small compact site with no apartment demolition, etc.



I'm sorry but I have to call a spade a spade. It is a classic NIMBY move to say "well we wouldn't need this if we just..." -- but the fact is, there is no deal or plan to do what you say above. The City has limited growth here for generations with restrictive policies and are still doing it with nonsense like batch heritage designations and restrictive angular planes. We live in the world we live in, which has seen almost zero new housing or building on the Danforth in the 56 years (!!!) since Line 2 opened. This is the kind of application that will pop up to fill the void.

Build it.

Just once I wanna see a density hawk give me a 10-20 year plan for a site in regards to community development. Don’t give me basic numbers and cite affordable housing needs- cuz you end up sounding like a neo-Robert Moses. And that’s the thing that I don’t get- Moses plowed under all those communities for new apartments, which turned out to be a mess because they had more to do with warehousing people than retaining a sense of community. Didn’t Jane Jacobs decry tall towers because they kept the eyes off the street? Wasn’t a building like the Grange heralded at the time for putting a skyscraper on its side”?

But cool, density. Let’s do it all. Do blocks and blocks of hi-rise towers, mass people together and then what? Squish em all out at 8am so they can get on a subway and go everywhere else in the city to work, play, eat, shop?

I feel like “density” and “affordable housing” get used as though the mere ideas of which would offer a panacea to all that ails us. Nimbyism used as a slur. When all some of us are asking for, is to not repeat the ills of the past.

Tell me you want to plow down 1/3 of East York for min. 5 storey buildings, then another 1/3 for parks and public resources commensurate to the projected population increase, I’m on board. Single family dwellings aren’t sacred to me. Shading Margaret Atwood’s garden? Don’t care. But to stupidly let developers build a wall of towers under the guise of public good and think that Section 37 funds will make the neighbourhood livable. Yeaaah I dunno.

This project in specific? It’s not even as good as Hullmark Centre, which (until we see what East Harbour brings) should be the minimum expectation of a transit hub in this city.

 

[SashaLemon]

Just once I wanna see a density hawk give me a 10-20 year plan for a site in regards to community development. Don’t give me basic numbers and cite affordable housing needs- cuz you end up sounding like a neo-Robert Moses. And that’s the thing that I don’t get- Moses plowed under all those communities for new apartments, which turned out to be a mess because they had more to do with warehousing people than retaining a sense of community. Didn’t Jane Jacobs decry tall towers because they kept the eyes off the street? Wasn’t a building like the Grange heralded at the time for putting a skyscraper on its side”?

But cool, density. Let’s do it all. Do blocks and blocks of hi-rise towers, mass people together and then what? Squish em all out at 8am so they can get on a subway and go everywhere else in the city to work, play, eat, shop?

I feel like “density” and “affordable housing” get used as though the mere ideas of which would offer a panacea to all that ails us. Nimbyism used as a slur. When all some of us are asking for, is to not repeat the ills of the past.

Tell me you want to plow down 1/3 of East York for min. 5 storey buildings, then another 1/3 for parks and public resources commensurate to the projected population increase, I’m on board. Single family dwellings aren’t sacred to me. Shading Margaret Atwood’s garden? Don’t care. But to stupidly let developers build a wall of towers under the guise of public good and think that Section 37 funds will make the neighbourhood livable. Yeaaah I dunno.

This project in specific? It’s not even as good as Hullmark Centre, which (until we see what East Harbour brings) should be the minimum expectation of a transit hub in this city.

The problem, as I see it, is that the Danforth is just one of the most lucrative streets to build up because it's so well laid out with a high-quality rapid-transit line running down it. With modern day planning, we can't build this anymore. We can't build a Danforth Ave in say, Richmond Hill. We can't build small houses on small lots on small streets. Without a major overhaul in planning regulations, developers will keep flocking to the most desirable pre-automobile streets because they are limited in supply.
This is also why I am baffled why I get flack for suggesting new rapid transit lines in areas where no density currently exists. Steeles, a midtown line, whatever. What heritage is there to protect in North York? Build a new line and have all the density you want. It's not ideal. Lower rise buildings would be better, but we need housing. The only two other options are A) gentle increase in density including façade-preserving mid rises on the ave + more laneway and garden suites OR B) building whole new towns around GO stations and basically build them like Greek Town. Build them like old streetcar suburbs. Ideally you would do both.

Don't do this and instead you will keep getting what we are currently getting, advancing suburbs on the outer reaches of the GTA + mindboggling density in the small areas in Toronto where they can fit it.

 

[Northern Light]

This is also why I am baffled why I get flack for suggesting new rapid transit lines in areas where no density currently exists.

No one is giving you flack for dreaming of the day that may be possible.............or for suggesting it in a Utopian world.........

Rather, people are pointing out that there is a finite pot of money; we simply aren't going to build 10 more new rapid transit lines beyond those already announced, over the next 25+ years.

So we need to discuss funding what we've already planned out:

Eglinton Crosstown to the Airport
Waterfront West LRT
Waterfront East LRT
Sheppard East
Sheppard West
Finch West - Eastern extension to Yonge
Finch West - Extension to Woodbine/Airport
Ontario Line - north to Sheppard Subway
Line 2 Western extension
Hurontario LRT to downtown Brampton
Something to serve UTSC (may or may not be the EELRT)

If we get all that by ~2045 we'll be doing quite well and better than most of us expect.

Beyond that.......the wish list is already forming

- Line 1 (Yonge side) north to Major Mack
- Line 1 (Vaughan side) up to Major Mack
- Ontario Line north to Finch (Seneca College)
- Steeles Avenue West LRT/BRT
- Hamilton's A-Line and the balance of its BLAST network
- Niagara Falls LRT
- Bolton GO
- NF GO - tunnel under/bridge over Welland Canal
- Jane LRT

etc.

So when you propose something on a street that has yet to be seriously discussed for a project and which has far fewer current or near-term potential riders than all of the above......

It's simply not happening in the next two decades, to a near certainty.

If Canada has its biggest economic boom and per-capita standard of living gains since the 1950s, sustained, for the next decade +, maybe we can revisit a few projects from the fantasy threads as having real potential,
but it will be a while.