Bad Bear
Active Member
Talk about hyperbolism.
Toronto Cumberland Square | 253.92m | 75s | KingSett Capital | Giannone Petricone
Talk about hyperbolism.
ProjectEnd
Superstar
What have you seen that no one else seems to have?
buildup
Senior Member
Calgary's Stampede. If we want to be world class we need our own stampede.
Uptowner
Active Member
Thank you. Finally, someone who sees what I mean.
In all seriousness, though, it's not just the fact that this project may have been chopped back from the thread heading of 85+70s to a measly 54 plus some other small structure in the future. It is the mentality behind it that is so upsetting. What on earth do they think is going to happen if you allow more people to live and work near Yonge and Bloor? Will the sidewalks be too crowded? Will the stores and restaurants be too busy? Will the library not have enough seats for everyone who wants to sit down? Of all the places to throttle development this area, on our two major subway lines, just seems like the most illogical spot of all. Has a 204m Four Seasons, much further from major transit, been so disastrous for the area? While the city's general tendency to give halfway ambitious projects the chop has always been annoying, the new preoccupation with sculpting the skyline around Y+B is moving from worrying into disturbing territory.
Why does anyone care if Casa III is a bit taller than buildings to the west, or a lot taller? I don't care about supertalls. I do care about what will amount, over time, to the many thousands of people who would have made downtown more vibrant had we built places in the sky for them to live. There should be for all intents and purposes no limit to building heights downtown. If you want low density you have almost the entire city to live in. Why deny those who want as densely populated a downtown as possible the chance to have one? It improves virtually every aspect of life for those who like that sort of life. And for those who don't, you can move a a couple subway stations further out and live in your ideal density nabe.
I won't harp on this string any longer after this post but I see the divide between the pro-development group and the pro-chop group as being the time horizons we consider. If you think twenty years into the future how many people will be walking around saying "Geez, I'm really glad they didn't let Cumberland Terrace or Casa III build higher." Or, had they let them be built up, "Gosh, this street would be just that much bit nicer if you could remove all the residents from the the top floors of these buildings that are currently walking on it."
This isn't so much written to convince those who disagree as to support those who have a similar vision as I do. Also, I hope this post isn't also taken as hyperbolic. It really isn't meant to be.
Last edited:
arvelomcquaig
Active Member
I agree completely. It’s insanity for a location as central and transit-accessible as this to have to have any height restrictions whatsoever. Much of Manhattan is far denser than this area once all these proposed structures are built; is Manhattan an insufferable catastrophe? Downtown Toronto generally has room for way more people, and, if there isn’t enough room in certain contexts—such as on sidewalks and public transit—having more people will encourage us to make more room. The more people, the more political demand to improve progressive infrastructure such as that for pedestrians, cycling, and public transit.
And yes, the contextual argument is completely mind-boggling to me. So what if there are a few one or two or three-storey buildings in a downtown area that should be tall? A new development needs to conform to its surroundings no matter how insanely and inappropriately small the surrounding buildings are? Buildings should be built as tall as is appropriate for achieving progressive densification and urban planning, not for mimicking its surroundings. A new development shouldn’t be an architectural chameleon; it should be an example of what’s best for the area.
And yes, the contextual argument is completely mind-boggling to me. So what if there are a few one or two or three-storey buildings in a downtown area that should be tall? A new development needs to conform to its surroundings no matter how insanely and inappropriately small the surrounding buildings are? Buildings should be built as tall as is appropriate for achieving progressive densification and urban planning, not for mimicking its surroundings. A new development shouldn’t be an architectural chameleon; it should be an example of what’s best for the area.
pw20
Active Member
Your original post was incredibly hyperbolic. I will say that there still seems to be a misunderstanding between height and "vision" (i.e. height = vision) which is a line of thinking I really just don't understand. People often site Manhattan as an example when comparing Toronto - Manhattan has greater density sure, but its density isn't built off of 80 story buildings, vast swaths of Manhattan are 8-10 story walk-ups. (This is a first hand account - I live in one).
While you're bemoaning the fact that the last renderings were chopped, remember that the 80 story plan would have seen the destruction of an office tower. While you and arvelomcquaig are bemoaning that the developer is not proposing as much density as they were, remember that the aggregate amount of density on site at current plan is similar to what was being proposed. Its the mix of density (ie retaining office density and adding residential density).
In my opinion, the future of Toronto as a dense urban city will be more about the success of The Well and whatever westbank does to Honest Eds (on the small scale) and 45 Bay and Oxford Place (on the large scale). Bemoaning that this proposal was chopped down from 80 storeys council without contextualizing what currently exists on the site (an office tower), councils desire to retain employment lands (office tower) in order to further a mixed use neighbourhood (something new york has in abundance), as well as previous proposals (as recently as 2012 Oxford was proposing two condo towers of 48 and 36 stories) is kinda simplistic (IMO), combining it with a "Toronto lacks vision" and this is a "tragic loss" lets step back from the ledge...
Uptowner
Active Member
I can see how it might seem a bit hyperbolic but it was a sincere disappointment being expressed. From what I understand the developer still wanted to go significantly higher. I fully hold to the position that the opposition to those plans is to be lamented.
As for height = vision, I agree that is not a framework for deciding on all proposals. It is not height in and of itself that I advocate rather height as the only means for Toronto to add density downtown. Because downtown Toronto is bounded in three directons by one to two storey houses we cannot build out 8-10 storey buildings like NYC. This is problematic for anyone trying to offer a development model for Toronto based on virtually any major international city we would aspire to emulate. Our downtown area that can be built up is just too small.
It is my conclusion, therefore, that we need to build up as much as possible by all the means we can, in all the ways we can, at all the times we can, in all the places we can, with all the proposals we can as long as ever we can.
Edit: I agree that The Well and Honest Ed's could be crucial. Especially if those models are take up all around the city including far from the downtown core.
Last edited:
Lenser
Senior Member
Geez. That's a pretty dire picture you paint. It needn't be so dramatic. You act as if entire tracts of dilapitated housing were never razed in favour of new projects, or that the same thing won't happen again and again to make way for new developments. Toronto's stock of low-rise buildings are not going to be there forever; nothing is exempt from change.
So - there is no need to claim that we simply must go vertical downtown or all is doomed. The city is already densifying in numerous areas in the core - from low-rise to mid-rise and higher where it seems to make sense and where demographics and market forces combine to exert the greatest pressure for condo and office towers. And let's not forget how freakin' huge a site Lever-Ponds is. "Our downtown area that can be built up is just too small?" Nonsense. Wait and see how the downtown will flex its considerable muscles - and expand to areas formerly dismissed as industrial wastelands too far off the beaten track to be considered viable.
Uptowner
Active Member
I guess much of the difference in opinion comes down to a question of scale. I suppose I just have unrealistic expectations for Toronto. I have been living in several Chinese cities for most of the past decade and see building on a scale that we just don't have here. I don't say we should replicate their models but I do see great advantages to building up- way up. I would love the population of the current downtown's boundaries (certainly up for discussion) to triple or even quadruple. I'm sure that is laughable to many but I thought I'd mention it as it might help account for the discrepancy in views.
Edit: I know I often don't take full account of new development areas and that is reason for real optimism.
Last edited:
maestro
Senior Member
We can easily achieve ten times the population density downtown without compromising planning policies such as shadowing of civic amenities or overburdening localized infrastructure that simply can't be expanded. Plenty of room for soaring height as well.
There were ten built 500 footers when I joined UT with one or two in the planning stages. 12 years later, 500 feet is barely worth anyone's time. It expresses how stupid this unending real estate boom has been. I also fear some of us are due for a severe reality check when things do go soft. Developers that aren't locked into building large leaseable areas will adjust their projects accordingly.
Even Chinese make work projects at home fueled by investments abroad will see a drop one day.
There were ten built 500 footers when I joined UT with one or two in the planning stages. 12 years later, 500 feet is barely worth anyone's time. It expresses how stupid this unending real estate boom has been. I also fear some of us are due for a severe reality check when things do go soft. Developers that aren't locked into building large leaseable areas will adjust their projects accordingly.
Even Chinese make work projects at home fueled by investments abroad will see a drop one day.
Last edited:
Uptowner
Active Member
Well if this is a common view then all my worry is completely misplaced. According to the UT thread below the downtown population was 199 000 last year. Ten times that would take us to 2 000 000 downtown. That would more than satisfy me. : - )
http://urbantoronto.ca/forum/showthread.php/19929-Population-of-downtown-Toronto
urbandreamer
recession proof
^The only way that would happen in your lifetime is if every condo kid had 10 kids within the next decade.
pw20
Active Member
If you've been living in Chinese cities (save for the French Concession or the Bund in Shanghai) then your perspective is of a scale that is pretty un pedestrian friendly (IMO). Again - height - does not mean vision, nor automatic good density.
One of the goals for this block is to actually create a pedestrian walkway from Bloor n/s ending at the Yorkville library. There is a lot at place here beyond just - lets put up tall condos!
Toronto should not aspire to mimic anyone else'e vernacular but to understand its own.
Mithras
Active Member
RealInsite is a great source to use to see what is available but in this case Oxford leases their own space and does not use Brokers. Like Cadillac, Brookfield and many other major landlords they have a wholly internalized leasing team for their space. In the case of looking if they would tear down a building, Sublet space also doesn't make a difference. The original tenant is still paying! Unless it is for all intents and purposes ALL of the space in the building available for sublet (where the LL would probably negotiate a lease termination) the LL doesn't care about sublets unless they are hampering direct leasing initiatives. Also in cases like this you have to have a empty building to do anything or strong demo clauses in ALL of the leases. Look at Oxford with 111 Richmond. They let it sit empty for years knowing they wanted to do something with it but being unable to lease even a sq.ft. of the space while they held it off market.
ksun
Senior Member
I don't know what you are getting at.
Chinese cities may not be all that great in urban planning, but most cities of comparable size are still vastly more pedestrian friendly than Toronto. Outside downtown (which is 3% of the city), Toronto/GTA has very few pedestrian friendly streets. Additionally, most streets in Chinese cities are mixed use, while in Toronto only a low percentage are while the vast majority is residential only.
heck, even most of East York is not pedestrian friendly at all being so close to the city center, not to mention the 95% of Scarborough, North York and Etobicoke. In large and medium sized Chinese cities, almost everyone is within 15 minutes walk to a grocery store/super market etc.
How many Torontonians walk to their grocery stores?