Toronto Chelsea Green (was 33 Gerrard) | 297.25m | 90s | Great Eagle | a—A

67Cup said:
I've been to Barca twice this winter. What a great city, though certainly not without its challenges. You're lucky to live there.

The Mediterranean climate of Barca certainly helps make it a more pleasant and walkable city in the winter. Toronto is not so fortunate in that respect. I hope, however, that the architects work hard on making this a four season park/public space, as far as may be possible. With a blizzard or even a strong north wind no one lingers outside, no matter how attractive the architecture. But the layout needs to acknowledge Toronto winters. It wouldn't be Las Ramblas, but it could be very pleasant. An aside: how often do we see renders of winter scenes? I would be favorably inclined to a development honest enough to acknowledge winter! Or even Spring and Autumn!

It doesn't fit this thread, but I would love to see extended walls of 6-10 storey buildings on the avenues outside the core, like Barca and so many other European city.

Stockholm might be a fairer comparative in some ways. It, by the way, has extended areas of suburban villas
Click to expand...

Barcelona's urban layout is nearby perfect, not just the buildings, but also division between bus lanes, car lanes and bike/pedestrians lanes. While I was walking on the street, I was amazed and wonder how backward Toronto is in that respect. We are not even bold enough to have a single pedestrian only street or bus lane! Las Ramblas and Yonge st are night and day difference, not just in terms of aesthetics, but how the streets are used.

I love the idea of walls of 6-10s buildings on the avenue, however, it is unrealistic in Toronto. We don't even have that kind of density downtown such as Queen st or Jarvis st. Outside downtown, people in general just hate anything talker than a 3 story building and love their little houses with yards. People in Barcelona don't live with backyards.

Barcelona and the old Toronto roughly have the same size, but we have less than half of the population, despite seemingly have a lot more skyscrapers. This is why I keep saying Toronto's "density" is mediocre at best.
 
AlvinofDiaspar said:
Perhaps a glass canopy along the lines of what's being proposed for The Well would be appropriate - but of course, that cost $$ and probably causes all kinds of debate over the nature of the space and who is responsible for the canopy.

Someone will have to get the wind rose out for this one, but maybe the proposal is getting it all wrong - that instead of having the open space aligned N-S with awkward alignment northward (like, just how would it connect to the Barbara Ann Scott Park? drawing a line is not exactly sufficient) and a space that might be dubious from a microclimate perspective, it would be better to have a more modest, cozy connection and focus on creating a smaller, more intimate green space off Walton, with proper enclosure on all sides? Quality, not quantity.

AoD
Click to expand...
I think you're mis-reading how large the park will be here: yes, it's proposed to run the height of the property from north to south, but it's not particularly wide. At the north end it faces Aura's porte cochère, which doesn't continue the view north, but does allow walk-through to Barbara Ann Scott Park, while stopping the wind coming directly from it.

Yes, a glass canopy might work to cut down on some wind here, but The Well isn't actually the best comparison here. In fact, The Well features a similarly wide canopy-free park on its north side, while its glass-canopied walks are narrower than the Walton Street right-of-way. One way or the other, with such tall buildings nearly surrounding the park here, they'll have to get the podiums right to mitigate the winds at ground as much as possible.

42
 
ksun said:
Barcelona's urban layout is nearby perfect, not just the buildings, but also division between bus lanes, car lanes and bike/pedestrians lanes. While I was walking on the street, I was amazed and wonder how backward Toronto is in that respect. We are not even bold enough to have a single pedestrian only street or bus lane! Las Ramblas and Yonge st are night and day difference, not just in terms of aesthetics, but how the streets are used.

I love the idea of walls of 6-10s buildings on the avenue, however, it is unrealistic in Toronto. We don't even have that kind of density downtown such as Queen st or Jarvis st. Outside downtown, people in general just hate anything talker than a 3 story building and love their little houses with yards. People in Barcelona don't live with backyards.

Barcelona and the old Toronto roughly have the same size, but we have less than half of the population, despite seemingly have a lot more skyscrapers. This is why I keep saying Toronto's "density" is mediocre at best.
Click to expand...

The solution to your density concerns are nodes of hyper density.Nice. Or is it you don't fully appreciate the densities consistently being proposed on Yonge? Y'know, future growth. They are double to triple that of the supertall alley, 57th Street in a Manhattan with a max FAR of 15.
 
interchange42 said:
I think you're mis-reading how large the park will be here: yes, it's proposed to run the height of the property from north to south, but it's not particularly wide. At the north end it faces Aura's porte cochère, which doesn't continue the view north, but does allow walk-through to Barbara Ann Scott Park, while stopping the wind coming directly from it.
Click to expand...

I am not sure what the benefit of having a N/S aligned park is - the mid-block connector function does not require a park per se, and the notion of continuity with Barbara Ann Scott Park is weak visually and practically, given the alignment and the high unlikelihood of a mid-block crosswalk/stop signal. Also, I am a little skeptical regarding the ability of Aura (or on that matter, the podiums) to stop the north wind - someone will have to model that one. We shall see as the project evolves.

AoD
 
AlvinofDiaspar said:
I am not sure what the benefit of having a N/S aligned park is - the mid-block connector function does not require a park per se, and the notion of continuity with Barbara Ann Scott Park is weak visually and practically, given the alignment and the high unlikelihood of a mid-block crosswalk/stop signal. Also, I am a little skeptical regarding the ability of Aura (or on that matter, the podiums) to stop the north wind - someone will have to model that one. We shall see as the project evolves.

AoD
Click to expand...

I agree. I imagine an east-west park would function better for pedestrians and would draw more people into the kind of neat urban nook this development has the potential to create. OTOH, patio potential on the bricks of Walton could do the same.
 
ksun said:
Barcelona's urban layout is nearby perfect, not just the buildings, but also division between bus lanes, car lanes and bike/pedestrians lanes. While I was walking on the street, I was amazed and wonder how backward Toronto is in that respect. We are not even bold enough to have a single pedestrian only street or bus lane! Las Ramblas and Yonge st are night and day difference, not just in terms of aesthetics, but how the streets are used.

I love the idea of walls of 6-10s buildings on the avenue, however, it is unrealistic in Toronto. We don't even have that kind of density downtown such as Queen st or Jarvis st. Outside downtown, people in general just hate anything talker than a 3 story building and love their little houses with yards. People in Barcelona don't live with backyards.

Barcelona and the old Toronto roughly have the same size, but we have less than half of the population, despite seemingly have a lot more skyscrapers. This is why I keep saying Toronto's "density" is mediocre at best.
Click to expand...
I am confused what kind of density you desire?

You want to see Toronto embrace Vancouverism with nodes of super-high densities or do you want Barcelona-esque 6-10s midrise density, or do you want to see Tokyo level low-rise density?
 
On density: Toronto is not dense but this development is super dense by any measure in any city internationally.

On density in general: I've posted this opinion before but what I want for Toronto is diversity of density. Uniform density, awesome or not, sucks. All hyper density is great for people who love hyper density (a percentage of the population) it sucks for everyone else. All low density is great for people who love low density, it sucks for everyone else. Midrise density is great for people who love midrise density, it sucks for everyone else.

In other words, travel to see places that are only hyper density, travel to see places that are only low density, travel to places that are only midrise density. A great city to live in, a great city that Toronto could become, has options for living in all forms of density within the same geographic area.
 
TrickyRicky said:
On density: Toronto is not dense but this development is super dense by any measure in any city internationally.

On density in general: I've posted this opinion before but what I want for Toronto is diversity of density. Uniform density, awesome or not, sucks. All hyper density is great for people who love hyper density (a percentage of the population) it sucks for everyone else. All low density is great for people who love low density, it sucks for everyone else. Midrise density is great for people who love midrise density, it sucks for everyone else.

In other words, travel to see places that are only hyper density, travel to see places that are only low density, travel to places that are only midrise density. A great city to live in, a great city that Toronto could become, has options for living in all forms of density within the same geographic area.
Click to expand...
This I can agree with. I will make one small amendment though.

It is not about density, it is about built form. Some people like to live and be around high rise built form, others mid rise built form and others low-rise built form, and they can all be dense and livable, and they can all co-exist within Toronto!

I would love to see our low-rise neighbourhoods zoning laws to be change in order to embrace low-rise forms of density. There are so many types of low-rise housing we can build that is in between single-detached housing and midrises that can maintain the build-form and the character of neighbourhoods, while allowing for greater densities that is required to serve transit and house our growing population!
 
What I'd like to see myself is some kind of policy to encourage making Victorian homes into apartments. They're quite large and could easily hold 5-6 units, if not more in larger ones. Plus I've always found it a glaring example of the unfairness of capitalism that a small number can afford such amazingly placed homes on large lots in a city that suffers severe rental shortages. So encourage the conversion of these buildings. It'd increase rental stock without changing the built form of the city too drastically. Tied with a policy to encourage laneway additions and housing and we could easily increase the amount of rentals in this city without having to demolish our heritage either.
 
wolfewood said:
What I'd like to see myself is some kind of policy to encourage making Victorian homes into apartments. They're quite large and could easily hold 5-6 units, if not more in larger ones. Plus I've always found it a glaring example of the unfairness of capitalism that a small number can afford such amazingly placed homes on large lots in a city that suffers severe rental shortages. So encourage the conversion of these buildings. It'd increase rental stock without changing the built form of the city too drastically. Tied with a policy to encourage laneway additions and housing and we could easily increase the amount of rentals in this city without having to demolish our heritage either.
Click to expand...

It is borderline sacrilegious to suggest this, but perhaps it is high time to reconsider whether it is wise to maintain so much Victorian homes at such close proximity to the core. We all know that these are increasingly gentrified and turned into single family housing, and I am not sure if that's a good idea. By all means preserve the most sailent and high quality districts (understanding that these will inevitably turn into high-income neighbourhoods), but imagine if any other city in the world facing growth pressures declare 2s neighbourhoods next to downtown as untouchable? That's what we have here.

AoD
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top