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

1. Gardiner
2. Gardiner
3. Top priority for TTC, while not necessarily to be built by the time the casino opens, I place it under the "extremely likely to begin within the next 10 years, max" category. Plus if Union station, with all the transit I listed above stopping there, is not considered a good transit location, I don't know what is. also Important to note that the casino is still 8 years away, minimum. Plenty of time for the DRL to get underway.
4. the focus should be whether the city wants a casino or not, not whether this is a suitable site for a development of this scale. what I was trying to say is that this is a completely suitable location for a development of this scale, if something like this is to ever be built anywhere in the city. The democratic process will ultimately have to decide whether a casino will be included though.

Important to note that I support Vaughn and Wang-tam on almost all their issues except their aversion to anything over 10 floors.
 
Last edited:
You keep mentioning the casino. You realize you're in the Mirvish/Gehry project thread, right? I'm not trying to sound like an ass/being sarcastic, I honestly think we might have a little mix-up.
 
ah, hahaha. We do have a mix up here.

the density of the Mirvish proposal does strike me as a bit over powering. cutting it down to 2000 units would probably make me happy though.
 
Well the two projects' discussions are certainly related. I find Front Street is more conducive to large proposals, and it does help it that Union is so close by, but I'm still not convinced that Toronto should be even considering such large, extravagant proposals (dessert) when we haven't eaten our vegetables (transit, better measures of reducing car use, affordable housing, etc.).

The one good thing is that the casino proposal is supposed to be handled by Foster who has a strong leaning towards environmental sustainability. That is at least a bit consoling since almost every other project in this city doesn't even offer a token show of thought for the environment (i.e. insulated balcony slabs). I hate to keep harping on this lately but in a city with SO many towers going up, we must think about these things.
 
My feeling is that Vaughan's more critical of embracing said high-rises as an absolute airheaded one-size-fits-all panacea for the future, than he's attacking these particular complexes as unmitigated disasters in and of themselves. Maybe a good comparison point might be how the Toronto-Dominion Centre would have been regarded in the Crombie/Sewell 70s.

Come to think of it, UT has a bit of a history of "how does this douche get (re)elected?" attitudinizing re Adam Vaughan--I mean, a few years ago, lotsa lotsa talk about how he was going to get creamed in 2010 because he was a humorous grump who disrespected Clubland and all the local business it generated. What happened? Landslide, and his closest opponent was a guy who barely earned back his deposit as a Trinity-Spadina PC in 2011's provincial election.

So, re those who want to say "this is an international metropolis, supertall condos are inevitable--get over it": may I counter-offer such elected-official reality and "this is what the local citizens want--get over it".
 
Last edited:
Vaughan's ward has ENDLESS numbers of towers so I'm not sure that he's really holding highrise developments back.

He doesn't strike me as someone who takes the lazy, one-size-fits-all approach. He's one of the more creative councillors in terms of bringing about change. I'm especially impressed by his attitudes towards getting developers to build more affordable housing (though it's still not near enough).
 
agreed on all fronts, except the height. he has been strongly opposed to anything over 157m, the height of the festival tower. he calls the Festival tower a mistake, but does allow towers to be built in that area to be built up until it's height. he sort of has to, as it has set a precedent. Wong-Tam on the otherhand, is increasingly rubbing off on me as someone who is opposed to anything over 10 floors, regardless of the conditions.
 
SP!RE said:
Wong-Tam and Vaughan are two of the very best councillors we've got, and for a long list of reasons. If you guys are this set against them because they listen to the people who live in their wards/neighbourhoods and care about shadowing/issues of midrises vs. highrises, then I get the impression you have some very odd priorities.

"I want more unsustainable towers everywhere!!!111"(Skyscraper fanboys)

vs.

"Let's have a measured discussion of what types of buildings are appropriate in which locations and listen to everyone who has to live in the area around them" (good urban planners, councillors, city builders with foresight)

...I think I'll side with the latter. I love me a good tall building, in fact I love them. But maximum height and maximum development are not always appropriate for every location in a city and need to be considered very carefully. Tall buildings have a big, long-term impact, sustainability being a major one.
Click to expand...

While I can completely appreciate what you're saying, I still find that they are too out of touch with reality. I know it sounds idiotic, but seems they care what their constituents say a little too much. Great for them, not so great for business, business that brings in important income into the neighbourhoods they build in. I'm probably one of biggest skyscraper geeks on the planet, but I have to force myself to acknowledge there are many considerations before the first hole is dug. Seems every time a tall proposal is made, Vaughn and Wong Tam can't shoot it down fast enough, frankly, regardless of their reason, it hawks me right off. To me, our tall towers is what I love most about our city, the taller the better, provided its in the core. I would expect these reactions from a councilor in, say, Scarborough, a place where a tall tower would be totally out of character, and where shadowing would be a real issue, but to show so much opposition in the one area of the city where a tall tower actually fits in makes absolutely no sense to me! The one big consideration now, should be public transit, it's currently inadequate for what we already have, more towers equals longer commute times, ok, that, and my big pet peeve, they build so much, increasing the core population by 100000, but neglect to build ANY infrastructure to handle the additional population. As much as I absolutely love all the current and proposed projects, after much thought (rare for me!) I think it essential that we first build more places to shop (the Eatons Centre is bursting at the seems 7 days a week, when I first moved downtown in 1990, it was deserted on the weekdays and closed on Sundays, now you can barely find a spot to sit and eat), they are improving the hospitals, but it's still not enough. We also need better roads, and better transit, if we continue to build towers and not improve infrastructure, we are sure to have absolute chaos, and in the end, people will start leaving if they have to wait twice as long for everything. Guess I kind of answered my own question here, but I still think if a tall tower (ie-50 Bloor) is proposed, they could at least be optimistic about it before cutting it to pieces. We've been spoiled recently, but big opportunities like this don't happen every day, time will tell I guess, happy Sunday all.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
So essentially you do just want more tall towers and density for the hell of it? Yeah, I still think I'll take the Wong-Tam approach, thank you!
 
what annoys me with Wong-Tam is if it is more than 10 floors, she seems to immediately slam it, and make the city right out refuse it if they don't drop the height to 10 floors. And of course the developer appeals to the OMB, as there is no way they could ever pull a profit on a 10 floor building on church street due to land prices. then the OMB approves it, and Wong-Tam complains that they don't let the city do anything. I like the way the OMB functions sometimes, (not all the time) as they basically tell the City to walk a fine line when negotiating with developers, and to work out something that is not only good for the city, but something the developer is willing to build as well. Not that Wong-Tam seems to be listening though, as she has largely been flat out opposing anything and everything that comes forward. (with the exception of 501 yonge, and the Bloor Parliament towers, even those are still not approved and that process has been going on for nearly 2 years now)
 
adma said:
My feeling is that Vaughan's more critical of embracing said high-rises as an absolute airheaded one-size-fits-all panacea for the future, than he's attacking these particular complexes as unmitigated disasters in and of themselves. Maybe a good comparison point might be how the Toronto-Dominion Centre would have been regarded in the Crombie/Sewell 70s.
Click to expand...

Vaughan was quite clear in the interview that he was opposed to the heights at which Shangri-la, Tiff & RBC-Ritz were built, this was not a case of Vaughan advocating against these Towers being used as a template for future development in the area. I wish Vaughan had been asked in the interview specifically what would have been appropriate heights for these towers and for the towers proposed by Mirvish, but Matt Galloway is a lousy interviewer who overlooks the most obvious questions.

Fortunately for Toronto the above towers were approved before Vaughan got involved or who knows how far they would have been whittled down (or if they would have even been built).

Similarly, Toronto-Dominion Centre was built before Toronto elected that tiny-imperfect Mayor David Crombie or else TD Centre would never have been built nor would any of Toronto's other signature Towers that, even after our recent building boom, still define our skyline.



Come to think of it, UT has a bit of a history of "how does this douche get (re)elected?" attitudinizing re Adam Vaughan--I mean, a few years ago, lotsa lotsa talk about how he was going to get creamed in 2010 because he was a humorous grump who disrespected Clubland and all the local business it generated. What happened? Landslide, and his closest opponent was a guy who barely earned back his deposit as a Trinity-Spadina PC in 2011's provincial election.
Click to expand...

Actually winning a Ward is no great accomplishment. Wards are not hotly contested and if you have name recognition winning is easy. Vaughan inherited name recognition from his dad. Just as he was able to become a journalist on the coat-tails of his late father, so to Adam was able to get elected to council.

If you look at the actual election totals, councilors are elected with minuscule numbers. Just over 7,000 voted for Vaughan in his first election. This must represent a tiny fraction of the population of his ward. Now I'll admit it is a bit of a mystery how he got elected for a second term since Adam Vaughan is one of these people that you only have to look at and listen to for a few minutes in order to develop an instant dislike of the man.

So, re those who want to say "this is an international metropolis, super-tall condos are inevitable--get over it": may I counter-offer such elected-official reality and "this is what the local citizens want--get over it".
Click to expand...

No its not necessarily "what the local citizens want". For example, I actually voted for Wong-Tam after doing my homework on the list of candidates. There was NOTHING in her platform that would indicate to me that if elected she would try to snuff-out development of tall buildings. Had she campaigned on this platform she would not have received my vote (and for sure she won't be getting it again!).

With any development proposal there will always be a small but very vocal group of people opposed. What politicians like Wong-Tam and Vaughan do is use the opposition from these small groups of nimby's to justify their own preferences. Now, you can say, oh well that's how democracy works, "get over it" but the fact is Wong-Tam just barely eked out a win with just 28% of the vote so I don't think she has any mandate to snuff-out skyscraper development downtown, especially since she did not campaign on that platform.
 
Last edited:
I don't think either Wong-Tam or Vaugh are trying to "snuff out" development of tall buildings. Both have had tall buildings go through with their support in their wards. I think they are simply trying to take a more balanced approach to development. I live in Wong-Tam's ward and the people I talk to and know are overwhelmings tired of development. They want a mortorium until infastructure can catch up (not just subways but sidewalks, green spaces etc as well) and are concerned about the loss of heritage buildings. And the fact that " they care what their constituents say a little too much" _- really? Isn't that their job? I want councillors like that representing me.
 
marsh said:
I don't think either Wong-Tam or Vaugh are trying to "snuff out" development of tall buildings. Both have had tall buildings go through with their support in their wards. I think they are simply trying to take a more balanced approach to development. I live in Wong-Tam's ward and the people I talk to and know are overwhelmings tired of development. They want a mortorium until infastructure can catch up (not just subways but sidewalks, green spaces etc as well) and are concerned about the loss of heritage buildings. And the fact that " they care what their constituents say a little too much" _- really? Isn't that their job? I want councillors like that representing me.
Click to expand...

Very well put. In architecture school I've found that there is great support for this same idea, that you should not be building endless lists of proposals until you have the transit/park/etc. infrastructure in place. It's easy to look around now and go "Life in downtown Toronto is pretty good, there is room for more development!" but the thing you have to think about is the FUTURE. Five, ten, twenty years from now. And we know how quickly things change in this city... look at how quickly areas like the Entertainment District or Southcore have mushroomed up. And these changes are not always positive, in fact they often come with huge consequences if there are not parks, public space (galleries and restaurants and cafes and shopping are NOT public spaces) and transit to balance them out.

It's interesting that in a city with standards for developers as low as Toronto (we really don't make them jump through any hoops apart from giving us some Section 37 money), the first people (the Wong-Tams or Vaughans of our city) who want to raise the standards a bit and question some aspects of development proposals are despised so much on UrbanToronto. I hope that these are just the more vocal posters here who hold this opinion since I was under the impression that there were more critical thinkers on this site than just skyscraper/development fanboys.
 
Last edited:
SP!RE said:
It's interesting that in a city with standards for developers as low as Toronto (we really don't make them jump through any hoops apart from giving us some Section 37 money), the first people (the Wong-Tams or Vaughans of our city) who want to raise the standards a bit and question some aspects of development proposals are despised so much on UrbanToronto. I hope that these are just the more vocal posters here who hold this opinion since I was under the impression that there were more critical thinkers on this site than just skyscraper/development fanboys.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Amd in fact, I do know that this fanboy/shill/astroturf element has driven some such "critical thinkers" out of UT or into hiding. Sort of like, who wants to be in an environment which would have been all about forcing Mayor David Hussein Crombama to show us his Kenyan birth certificate going on 40 years ago...
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top