Toronto Forma | 308m | 84s | Great Gulf | Gehry Partners

Just looking at the renderings again, how the hell are they going to get actual residential units in there? The windows on the east tower don't look like they're parallel with the ground.
 
egotrippin said:
Fair points, although I don't have much faith in the city getting their act together on the DRL in the next 20 years even. Perhaps I'm just being prejudiced though, as I'm simply not impressed with the design. It looks like a monument of Mirvish dick-waving with scaled-up Gehry retreads. Clunky and inelegant describes these 3 towers best.
Click to expand...

The Relief Line is happening. It's one of the the few things that everyone at Queen's Park and City Hall agree needs to happen. Metolinx is expecting it to be operating sometime around 2025, which is likely before M+G will be completed.
 
adma said:
In practice these days, it seems pretty well-used as I see it--*especially* St. Andrew station, which'd be Mirvish/Gehry's stop...
Click to expand...

The University Subway is one of the least used sections on our 1 Yonge-University-Spadina. In 2031, peak AM southbound flows will be less than 50% of capacity. And that is assuming the Relief Line isn't built.

Furthermore, riders on 1 Yonge-University-Spadina who originated from M+G will be going against the flow of AM traffic (northbound). This means that most of them will probably be heading in a direction that is likely at no more than ~35% of its capacity.

And then we have to consider that M+G residents will be within walking distance of all GO lines and the Relief Line (TTC) and several streetcar routes. That will help to spread out the demand.
 
Last edited:
TheTigerMaster said:
The University Subway is one of the least used sections on our 1 Yonge-University-Spadina. In 2031, peak AM southbound flows will be less than 50% of capacity. And that is assuming the Relief Line isn't built.

Furthermore, riders on 1 Yonge-University-Spadina who originated from M+G will be going against the flow of AM traffic (northbound). This means that most of them will probably be heading in a direction that is likely at no more than ~35% of its capacity.

And then we have to consider that M+G residents will be within walking distance of all GO lines and the Relief Line (TTC) and several streetcar routes. That will help to spread out the demand.
Click to expand...

Good points, the problem is they Can't Handle The Truth.
 
The University Subway is one of the least used sections on our 1 Yonge-University-Spadina. In 2031, peak AM southbound flows will be less than 50% of capacity.
Click to expand...

Proof of this? Every time I take a southbound train from St George in the morning its packed.
 
south of St. George is the only really busy part. The Spadina subway (north of St. George) is relatively underused.

also, even the Sheppard subway is "packed" at rush hour, TTC runs the minimum amount of service required for all its lines during rush hours.

even then, the University subway is used less than Yonge.
 
Edward Skira said:
Proof of this? Every time I take a southbound train from St George in the morning its packed.
Click to expand...

1. AM riders from M+G won't be using southbound trains on the Yonge-University subway
2. The St. George - Queens Park section of the University Subway has slightly more southbound AM usage than the rest of the the University Subway. It's will be at 50 - 74% of capacity in 2031. But as I mentioned earlier, M+G riders won't be heading southbound. The northbound trains are likely less than 50% of capacity.

The transit argument has no merit against M+G. If you're concerned about capacity, there is no better place in the city this project. M+G will go against the prevailing ridership flows and be right on top of two subways, multiple streetcars and all the GO lines. It doesn't get better than that.

Anyways take a look at the Relief Line Network Study from Metrolinx to see 2031 AM southbound ridership values on 1 YUS.
 
Last edited:
AlvinofDiaspar said:
But herein lies the problem - architecture should not be considered a second fiddle to height/density/traffic/heritage matters (beyond the fact that economics of high quality architecture and materials often do require additional concessions to what are more traditionally considered as areas of planning concerns) - the very fact that once approval is given one can default to Kirkor, G&C and others speaks volumes about the ill this artificial and inflexible divide can create. There is something seriously wrong with the city when it can justify projects like Aura and not MG.

AoD
Click to expand...

DPS may be able to help this in the future (tying zoning and design/site plan together) but those supporting the development application and dismissing the planners' concerns should know that things like switching architects to Kirkor, "The Cheapening (TM)," selling the property to someone else etc are all possibilities. Once you approve that density, anything can go there and it's a lot harder to fight a site plan with approved zoning than it would be to fight that zoning in the first place (since design is much more subjective). That's why for the planners it is important to make sure the site would be appropriate for three supertowers and heritage destruction whether you have three 80 storey Gehrys or three 80 storey Holiday Inn wedding cake buildings go up.
 
Re the almost-superfluous-to-this-thread subway argument: what's "capacity"? Seems like some of these arguments are inferring that "capacity" means "stiflingly stuffed to the gills", like that's a good thing or something...
 
your going to be stuffed to the gills no matter what, the ttc runs only the trains it has to during rush hour to save money. the point we are talking about is that the line is capable of handling more people. (which it is, the TTC will be running 135 second frequencies on the YUS line by 2015 but the line will be capable of 105 seconds, even by 2025 they are still planning to be running 121 second frequencies) King streetcar maybe not so much, but this is so close to the core everyone will just walk anyway.
 
adma said:
Re the almost-superfluous-to-this-thread subway argument: what's "capacity"?
Click to expand...
.

Capacity is the maximum amount of people that a mode of transit can safely move. In the case of the 1 Yonge-University-Spadina, that will be 44,000 pphpd* in 2031.

The University Subway will probably be moving less than 20,000 pphpd in 2031, well below maximum capacity for the line.

Seems like some of these arguments are inferring that "capacity" means "stiflingly stuffed to the gills", like that's a good thing or something..
Click to expand...

The Sheppard Subway moves only 4,000 pphpd, yet that subway is crowded in the AM rush. This is because the TTC only runs as many vehicles as are are needed. As demand increases on University the TTC can easily put more vehicles into service.

*People per hour per direction.
 
Last edited:
innsertnamehere said:
your going to be stuffed to the gills no matter what, the ttc runs only the trains it has to during rush hour to save money. the point we are talking about is that the line is capable of handling more people. (which it is, the TTC will be running 135 second frequencies on the YUS line by 2015 but the line will be capable of 105 seconds, even by 2025 they are still planning to be running 121 second frequencies) King streetcar maybe not so much, but this is so close to the core everyone will just walk anyway.
Click to expand...

The King Streetcar probably won't be around anyways by time M+G is competed. It's doubtful that all three towers will be completed by 2025.
 
adma said:
Re the almost-superfluous-to-this-thread subway argument: what's "capacity"? Seems like some of these arguments are inferring that "capacity" means "stiflingly stuffed to the gills", like that's a good thing or something...
Click to expand...

I agree its superfluous (and false), I wish objectors would stop raising it.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top