Toronto CityPlace: Canoe Landing Community Centre & Schools | 15.85m | 3s | City of Toronto | ZAS Architects

Everybody knows the nature of City place is tall towers. They all bought into that. To complain about tall towers now, is just ridiculous. This is downtown Toronto, so expect tall towers. As for the design of the buildings, you would think people would be happy if they built nicer buildings, since they will be looking at them a lot. Hey, we all have to live with them, so they better be decent looking buildings.

My only issue is why is the city allowing high density with no retail? Don't we want to animate the district and make it interesting for people to visit and live in? Shouldn't there be restaurants and cafes all around that park, so people can fully enjoy the area? What about washrooms? If there are any large events in the park, people are going to be looking for restaurants, just to use the bathroom. City place should not have been strictly residential, due to it's location. It should have been a mixed use community. I hope West Don Lands is not going to be strictly residential. What a waste of space! It may give people a place to live but it gives nothing back to the rest of the city. It's just another dull neighbourhood. (basically a dead zone)
 
Torontovibe said:
My only issue is why is the city allowing high density with no retail? Don't we want to animate the district and make it interesting for people to visit and live in? Shouldn't there be restaurants and cafes all around that park, so people can fully enjoy the area? What about washrooms? If there are any large events in the park, people are going to be looking for restaurants, just to use the bathroom. City place should not have been strictly residential, due to it's location. It should have been a mixed use community. I hope West Don Lands is not going to be strictly residential. What a waste of space! It may give people a place to live but it gives nothing back to the rest of the city. It's just another dull neighbourhood. (basically a dead zone)
Click to expand...

Agreed 100%. This seems like the simplest thing in the world to do and somehow they managed to screw it up.
 
Cityplace

Ramako said:
Agreed 100%. This seems like the simplest thing in the world to do and somehow they managed to screw it up.
Click to expand...

Exactly! I posted this same comments on the "Cityplace St Jamestown in waiting" thread.

If they had mixed commercial here with the residential, this could have been a really nice area. 1 grocery store and 2 banks west of Spadina just doesn't cut it.
 
While I'm as baffled as anyone else that City Place happened at all, given the existing and successful St. Lawrence District model for creating an entirely new neighbourhood, it has a character of its own and seems to work well enough for the young downtowners who live there. I have a feeling that the spaces between the towers can probably be more easily "greened" than turned into thriving retail strips, though. I'd love to see them defined as a distinct realm, and evolve into a network of hippy-dippy community gardens to feed the residents, and the city.

As for "dull neighbourhoods" and "dead zones", well most of the city consists of those - regardless of whether they're high or low rise. The one I live in ( a low rise version: Riverdale ) is as dead as a door-nail, Monday to Friday from 9 a.m. until 6 p.m. - and relentlessly single use residential in nature, block after block after block. We who live there don't feel the need to "animate" residential streets with retail for the benefit of attracting visitors. It isn't a question of not giving back to the city - we are the city, and the city is a network of such neighbourhoods linked by arterial roads with shops and office buildings along them. Just as City Place has adjacent parks, so do we have several large parks - Withrow and Riverdale East - and neither have retail establishments set up in them, though between them they're well served with a running track, two baseball diamonds, a hockey rink, a soccer/football field, each has tennis courts, there's a swimming pool, volleyball, and washrooms. They're used mostly by those who live nearbye, but the rest of the city isn't excluded. A difference, I suppose, is that residents of condo towers in City Place will have some of these facilities included in their buildings, and not in the public realm between them, but Block 31's schools, daycare centre, community centre and seniors' housing are neighbourhood facilities geared to locals. I'm not sure how much any primarily residential neighbourhood - high rise or low - needs to gear itself to entertaining people from other parts of the city - the differences between these neighbourhoods already contributes to the character of the greater city.

I actually have more sympathy for high rise NIMBYs than for the St. Nickers low rise breed. If the essence of big city apartment living is being up there in the sky with uninterrupted views of the city below - which it isn't for residents of traditional single family homes - then word of another tower going up nearbye is bound to raise concerns.
 
ProjectEnd said:
Thanks for those detailed overviews AKS and MatrixElement.

However, I take issue with AKS' notion that because these are TCHC towers, they should only be built to the minimum spec. We tried that in the 50's and 60's with disastrous results both here in Canada, and, more conspicuously, south of the border. Part of the problem was that residents didn't feel compelled to take any pride in where they were living. By giving them a building which they could feel proud of, aA and TCHC are trying to prevent past problems and keep the fabric (loose as it is) of Cityplace relatively tight-knit.

Also, I find the criticism of Clews for being arrogant a little weak. He's there to shamelessly promote his design, not sit back and have uninformed Cityplace residents (not AKS or MatrixElement specifically) take cheap shots at something they are unable to change.
Click to expand...

I really wonder if building a nice tall condo with scenery will make them feel prouder to live in an area so they keep their unit clean. I've seen several rentals and the renters are plain dirty. They're slobs in fact. Owners would probably keep their place cleaner because they paid a lot of money and own it.

The reason West One is 50 stories tall is because the tower on the other side is also tall to form an "entrance" on spadina. The rest of the towers are slightly shorter I think. N is around 40 or so with 8' ceiling. Parade is 18 and 36 stories. So why does the TCHC building have to be as tall as west one? It's not part of the "entrance". I don't see why it can't imitate the height of parade or less. Or even become something slightly different like a square donut or even 2 C reflecting each other. The TCHC building could be above the school and community area. There could also be more balconies so everyone gets to go outside in the summer on their balcony. Currently. Only "selected" few people in the tall tower and only facing west have large balconies. The rest have none. Clewes complained builders make small balcones. True, but at least everyone has some sort of balcony. I think builders could be creative and make shapes using balconies like Absolute tower and Nautilaus. Even Chicago has that interesting balcony weaving in and out.

As for Clewes not being arrogant. Here's my take. The first thing he said when he went up was "I haven't slept for 36 hours. My wife was having a baby". My thought is, how does this relate to the discussion? Did he want sympathy from the attendees that he hasn't slept for 36 hours or did he want us to congratulate him? Many people who bought at city place has worked hard for years and tried to save money to buy a condo there. Many are probably taking mortgage to pay for it for the next 10 years. Who is having the harder time?

Then he was talking about how great the TCHC building would be. It's like a slap in the attendees face. "Ha! you're spending the next 10 years paying off your building hoping to get a view. But the TCHC will block your view! Too bad! The people paying lower rent will get better heights, better views, better energy efficiency (LEED), small built in parks, etc. Suckers!" Then he talked about the shadowing. He kept emphasizing how the shadow won't affect the park. Totally ignoring that the shadow would hit CP buildings. When asked, he said "we're only concerned about the shadow on the park" Sure screw CP residents over. Who cares about them, as long as the park isn't shadowed. It felt like he didn't live there. Why should he care if other buildings got shadowed or not. He also bragged about the huge balconies some units would have while others won't have balconies. I don't think he considered the other renters in the building. Everyone should have a chance to have some sort of a balcony to enjoy. I really wonder if all architects are like him. Maybe that's why people on the forum bitch about design. It looks alright, but they don't take into the account how the people who will live there feel. Like those crappy layouts buildings have. They don't consider people living there have certain needs.

Anyhow, the shadowing was brought up again around 8:30pm or so. Adam Vaughn seemed to be willing to negotiate. He insists that there must be TCHC. Fine I don't have a big issue with that. I've done volunteering for the Cadillac Fairview Xmas Dinner at Eaton's. I've met some of the low income people and they are pretty decent people. I think it was a nice gesture to offer them an xmas because their income is around 14k and can't afford such luxuries. If those people were to stay at TCHC, I wouldn't have an issue. I actually feel bad for them because I wonder how they can survive with such income. It makes me feel lucky to be earning 30k even though I'm below average. At least I'm able to save up for a condo after working 10 years. I feel that those that need a helping hand could have kids that can move up with a good education. Frankly, I was once in their shoes. My parents were penniless when they came. They worked from the bottom up and for a short time, subsidized rental did help us on our feet. I don't think if the people are decent, that having a luxury apartment would make much difference. To people like us, just having a roof over our head and enough food to put on the table is enough. Also to earn enough to save up over time and own our own place is all the helping hand needed. My parents were clean people no matter whether we rented or owned. However I can't vouch for everyone's hygienic attitudes. Some are just slobs.

Back on topic, Adam Vaughn, said he was willing to negotiate about the building. However, there must be a TCHC component.

If the city really wanted to make things better. They should mix the low income people with the owners in the same building. Hopefully living in the same building, will be a better influence? That was what Adam Vaughn wanted too, but it's too late to implement. They're planning to do that on the Donlands area though.
 
Last edited:
US, thank you for your thoughtful nuanced points. I actually view CP a bit differently now.

AKS, you are clearly frustrated, but I think you are making a lot of assumptions and sweeping generalizations that are simply not fair.

I just want to add that the balcony argument seems a bit odd. I personally would rather have a unit without one. It doesn't seem like a big deal to me.
 
Oh, give me a break....

This whining about this tower being 50 floors and not being right for this area is just plain nonsense.

The other towers are tall so why not this one? With this logic, then the final tower, Signature shouldn't be proposed as it is since it clearly violates some hidden and mysterious height barrier down there.

And one has to wonder if what really grates people about this tower isn't the height but rather who's going to be living there.
If there were going to be condo owners rather than low income renters here then I suspect we wouldn't even be having this debate.

Let's face it, if you're poor, people just don't want you living in their neighborhood.
 
You clearly didn't understand what I meant when I said "people like us". I meant new immigrants who are poor. New immigrants who don't have a grasp of English are struggling at the bottom of the chain living on 14k income and trying to take care of their kids. I can imagine it's very difficult, let a lone being able to save anything. When they immigrant here, they probably have their reasons and we should lend a helping hand until they can stand up on their own. All they really need is a roof over their head and enough food to survive. On 14k income and kids, they're barely get through if even without any assistance. They don't ask for all fancy stuff. Just enough to stand up. If you over give, some might not even bother standing up. If someone is carrying you, why walk?

As for the purpose of TCHC, it's not completely for new immigrants. If I had known 30-65k earners were allowed subsidizing, I think I would have applied rather than struggle for 10 years to build myself up for my own place. I think many people would apply if they knew. Many people don't earn that much money past that bracket, hence the 40k average income.

Also regrading the 43 story building. It has a height increase of 12.5% which the government hasn't approved for the budget. The building is using tax payers money to get built. And they're getting so fancy. Those units cost around $400 psf to build. The builders are selling at $600 psf. Do you think your tax money is well spent? The rental they bring in is only enough to pay for maintenance fee and property tax. Hence it will be built with tax dollars.
 
AKS said:
I really question why they have to build such a tall tower myself. They could easily build a podium style instead much like what Parade is like and a shorter towers on top if they wish. They said themselves many people complained about the tall glass towers. They could easily put the TCHC building over the school building with the entrance on the side from brunel. Infact, why not both C inverted. Or having a square donut shape? In the centre they could put a park for the kids like One Cole's above ground park. or have a swimming pool on the first level and a park on the second level or something towards that end (which can be shared by both schools). The inner units would face the inside park, the outer units face the CP park, the highway, or CP buildings.

I also think maybe they should mix the seniors and the other tenants together. Unless they have the are planning exclusively for seniors and have nurses to take care of them.


Regarding the shifting balconys. I find the architect is full of himself. It's all about forms and such. I don't find the shifting balconys all that impressive. However for the people living there, it seems like certain large families will have large balconies while many won't have any at all. How is that fair to the other families renting? Too bad? They generally pay the same rent. That lends itself to an exclusivity to certain renters. And the owners facing east, north and south have no balconies either. I'm glad you mentioned the architect's name. I didn't realize he was Peter Clewes. I found I liked Adam Vaughn more than him. My feelings towards him when he first spoke, was "Let me talk about me first." then it was "Let me talk about my great design and why people should be blown away by it". I agree the people in the room were pretty hostile to Adam, which I understand but not warranted. I think Adam, handled the crowd well. Even though they dissed him, he was taking it well and willing to discuss hence the meeting (better than PC who thought people were behaving badly, not taking into consideration the anger the residents who live there felt. Cuz he certainly doesn't and don't care).

One thing I don't understand also is how it will create more live in the area other than the school. Adam Vaughn complained about how there's nothing there. Adding the TCHC won't help either unless they intend to add in restaurants, etc within the TCHC. Unless Concord stops building town houses at the bottom or renting them out to banks, the only place people can actually use is Sobeys. There's no restaurants in the area.

One thing that irked the people there I think was the claim it's 80% cost of the average rent. I think average rent overall in Toronto rather than C1 average rent. $1100 for 3 bedroom is not 80% of the average rent in the area. 2 bedrooms in the C1 newer buildings are renting for over $2000 let alone 3 bedrooms. Also, 9' ceilings? Builders are selling 9' ceilings as a luxury condo. Most CP buildings are 8' infact. I just get the feeling it's like, TCHC wants to compete with other builders using tax money to outdo them.

Also, regarding the renters for TCHC. Adam said it would be catered to income around 30-65k but not solely. I kind of wonder if I should apply for TCHC rental myself. I earn around 25-30k and I've been scrimping and saving for 10 years to buy a condo. I only treat myself to a vacation once in 2-3 years. I don't even own a car so I could save more, I take the TTC. I hardly go out much so I won't waste money and I'm always looking for deals and savings so I don't have to spend so much to save more for the future so I can take care of myself rather than have the city take care of me. I even worked throughout high school and university to pay for my own tuition. Now, I'm starting to wonder why I'm working so hard to survive and build up. I should get govt to subsidize me instead so I can live without being so frugal. At 65k, I don't understand how the family aren't able to take care of themselves and need subsidized housing.

I read in news articles, many young adults don't bother saving. They spend what they have and save very little. Even teenagers live pay check by pay check. I don't think there's need for them to worry. I think they're thinking they'll just have the government take care of them if needed.

ah, sorry. A final rant. Adam Vaughn was complaining how he doesn't like the investors buying into the area and renting them out cuz they're looking for a profit. But, if it wasn't for the investors, the buildings wouldn't exist. I don't think the builders could build tall towers without investors help. Even the builders are looking for a return, so that's why they build. Why shouldn't the investors? I don't understand his claim. He doesn't like the high rises and it's investor orientation? But what about the large amount of taxes people in the downtown area pay to the city? Incoming money is good, investors and builders bad. You can't have one without the other. I doubt the city could build all these towers without builders and investors.
Click to expand...



I Total agree with you, I should have gone to the meeting to make my point.
I said everything you said in this forum, but you just put it in a better context. Why people pay more money for Cityplace when TCHC make better housing luxury for low income renters. I work hard like the rest of the property owners and we come home looking out the window we see people who may not work as hard living your dream of having a great view when you come home from a hard/long day of work.

I am disappointed with Cityplace and Government, it's just unfair to all the owners who trusted them.
 
AKS said:
You clearly didn't understand what I meant when I said "people like us". I meant new immigrants who are poor. New immigrants who don't have a grasp of English are struggling at the bottom of the chain living on 14k income and trying to take care of their kids. I can imagine it's very difficult, let a lone being able to save anything. When they immigrant here, they probably have their reasons and we should lend a helping hand until they can stand up on their own. All they really need is a roof over their head and enough food to survive. On 14k income and kids, they're barely get through if even without any assistance. They don't ask for all fancy stuff. Just enough to stand up. If you over give, some might not even bother standing up. If someone is carrying you, why walk?

As for the purpose of TCHC, it's not completely for new immigrants. If I had known 30-65k earners were allowed subsidizing, I think I would have applied rather than struggle for 10 years to build myself up for my own place. I think many people would apply if they knew. Many people don't earn that much money past that bracket, hence the 40k average income.

Also regrading the 43 story building. It has a height increase of 12.5% which the government hasn't approved for the budget. The building is using tax payers money to get built. And they're getting so fancy. Those units cost around $400 psf to build. The builders are selling at $600 psf. Do you think your tax money is well spent? The rental they bring in is only enough to pay for maintenance fee and property tax. Hence it will be built with tax dollars.
Click to expand...

yep, why work hard when the tax you pay is going against you. Canada's tax system is not meant to motivate you to work hard, it tells you to evade tax and do underground business so you can get better benefit! Sigh
 
Rangostar said:
I Total agree with you, I should have gone to the meeting to make my point.
I said everything you said in this forum, but you just put it in a better context. Why people pay more money for Cityplace when TCHC make better housing luxury for low income renters. I work hard like the rest of the property owners and we come home looking out the window we see people who may not work as hard living your dream of having a great view when you come home from a hard/long day of work.

I am disappointed with Cityplace and Government, it's just unfair to all the owners who trusted them.
Click to expand...

Rangostar, your views are simply laughable.
 
Did you know that people with no legs get like $1000 a month in disability benefits from the government? What a disincentive to walk around. I've spent the last 25 years ON MY FEET like a sucker when I could have just sawed my legs off and lived like a king.

Also those 9 foot ceilings feel even higher when you've got no legs!
 
Rangostar said:
I am disappointed with Cityplace and Government, it's just unfair to all the owners who trusted them.
Click to expand...

What on earth are you talking about? When City Place bought the railway lands there was clearly a section of them set aside for TCHC housing - if you cannot cope with looking at people who are poorer than you are but live in decent buildings you should not have bought in City Place. It may have taken the City and TCHC a while to get their act together but it should not have surprised you!
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top