Toronto HighPark Condominiums | ?m | 14s | Daniels | Diamond Schmitt

[Xray_Crystal_Junkie]

You're making an assertion without demonstrating it. An equivalent response from me would be Yes they are!

So your counter is essentially that it is just my opinion. Well obviously. And all your statements are just your opinion.

And by the way, it's because you're trying to equate the loss of a stretch of nondescript single family homes in a highly desirable area to:
1) demolishing kilometers of neighbourhoods and putting an expressway in their place
2) see '1)'
3) demolishing massive civic buildings that have had a significant rolls in the governance and development of this city over the last 100+ years.

If your point is that there are developers out there that prioritize income over quality building and improving our neighbourhoods and city, sure they exist. Does that automatically make all development you don't like a disaster? Not even close.

Shitty past proposals on a much different scale and completely separate from this have no relevance.

 

[M.Harris]

So your counter is essentially that it is just my opinion. Well obviously. And all your statements are just your opinion.

And by the way, it's because you're trying to equate the loss of a stretch of nondescript single family homes in a highly desirable area to:
1) demolishing kilometers of neighbourhoods and putting an expressway in their place
2) see '1)'
3) demolishing massive civic buildings that have had a significant rolls in the governance and development of this city over the last 100+ years.

If your point is that there are developers out there that prioritize income over quality building and improving our neighbourhoods and city, sure they exist. Does that automatically make all development you don't like a disaster? Not even close.

Shitty past proposals on a much different scale and completely separate from this have no relevance.

No....my counter is that you can't respond to my point by simply writing a contrary assertion that isn't supported by anything. It doesn't amount to an argument....it's just someone saying "I'm right because I say so."

Shitty past proposals on a much different scale and completely separate from this have no relevance.

My point was actually that the developers from the previous generation were secure in their certainty that they really got it right with the trendy ideas in urban planning of the time. Now we look at their ideas and we are astonished at their hubris and cavalier attitude towards the integrity of the city’s neighbourhoods and architectural history. Do you think that today’s developers are incapable of such hubris? Or do you just accept without question the certainty of today's urban planners regarding the current crop of trendy ideas? Have you considered that the ideas that you are supporting could be evaluated as worthy of the same degree of contempt by future generations as we evaluate the ideas of the previous generation of developers?

 

[Xray_Crystal_Junkie]

You quoted my explanation for why they were absurd comparisons.

And of course mistakes were made, or almost made, in the past. That has no bearing on whether this proposal will be found wanting in the future in much the same way. Strip away your assertion that just because it may seem 'fashionable' now doesn't mean it won't be considered a mistake, and the rest of your arguments (for example losing nice homes) are weak.

 

[M.Harris]

You quoted my explanation for why they were absurd comparisons.

And of course mistakes were made, or almost made, in the past. That has no bearing on whether this proposal will be found wanting in the future in much the same way. Strip away your assertion that just because it may seem 'fashionable' now doesn't mean it won't be considered a mistake, and the rest of your arguments (for example losing nice homes) are weak.

Well I guess we are in serious agree to disagree territory.
To recap:You think those arguments are weak...I think I'm the one who has actually made an argument for my perspective.
You are in favour of bulldozing over swaths of heritage era homes along Bloor Street in order to make way for generic looking condos....I think it shows a pitiful indifference to the history,culture, aesthetics and sense of continuity of the city.
I have made the point previously(to which you had no response) that the logical extension of your argument would be to justify bulldozing all of the old structures along that stretch of Bloor. Wouldn't it make sense just to get rid of all of these worthless old buildings in Toronto altogether? That's clearly something like the attitude of the planners and developers of the previous generation who advocated the kinds of projects that I mentioned before(to which I would add St. James Town and Regent Park). There is a legacy of that kind of thinking in this city among the people who have been entrusted with shaping the urban environment - a style of thinking that I would argue has been adopted by the current crop of planners and developers and for which you are an advocate. This is why the sins of the previous bunch are relevant today: Why should the rest of us have any confidence that the bright ideas of the current lot are any better than their predecessors when the track record has been so poor?

The last point I would make is that the kind of destruction of heritage era buildings that is so par for the course in Toronto is not normal. To the best of my knowledge, the indifference to heritage in this city is an anomaly compared to most sophisticated urban centres. And yet people who support what goes on here, such as yourself, don't seem to bother yourselves with the implications of that. There is a bigger context at play here regarding excellence in city design and development. So why is Toronto at such odds with what appears to be accepted best practices everywhere else? And why are you content with that?

 

[M.Harris]

Interestingly, I just happened to come across an article from Melbourne Australia today called, "Building pride in our city: Looking at the property-development mistakes of the past can help ensure a better Melbourne in the future."
http://theage.domain.com.au/design-and-living/building-pride-in-our-city-20130725-2qk68.html

It's very relevant to the development history in Toronto as the two cities are so similiar. An excerpt that may be particularly relevant to this topic is from Professor Michael Buxton, an environment and planning specialist at RMIT University, who is writing a book on Melbourne's planning history:
(note - In Australia they use the word "suburb" the way we would say "neighborhood". So The Annex would be a "suburb". And Yorkville would be another "suburb").

[What is]The best planning policy achievement[in Melbourne]of the past 20 years?

Buxton:''Protection of the green wedges ([non-urban areas first set aside by the Hamer government]''.

The worst?

''The new metropolitan deregulated planning zones … that will facilitate greatly increased development [except in some heritage suburbs](my emphasis). By flogging the role of planning to powerful developers and retailers, we have created an absolute [development] time bomb.''

The lost opportunity?

''In a spatial sense, Docklands. It was originally going to be a low-rise inner suburb, but instead turned into a high-rise, windy suburb with half the intended population.''

The building or precinct you most admire? ''The Victorian inner suburbs [within the cities of] Yarra and Port Phillip, which have retained the traditional strip shopping centres and have maintained themselves as incredibly liveable, walkable, high-quality suburbs.''

What should we protect at all costs?

''Our heritage buildings because they are a city's greatest economic strength. We should not allow any pre-World War I buildings to be pulled down anywhere.''(my emphasis).

 

[interchange42]

Front page story with slightly surprising construction shots here.

42

 

[urbandreamer]

I miss the trees, birds and beautiful old homes (even if they had intentionally been left to rot.)

 

[interchange42]

Another front page story on this: we're getting to watch this one get built from the ground down and the bottom of the pit up, and this is the first time we've watched footings being poured.

42

 

[interchange42]

The latest:

New front page story here.

42

 

[urbandreamer]

4 May 2014

 

[urbandreamer]

23 May 2014:

 

[interchange42]

This building is picking up speed now, and our first climb through the site with the building above ground revealed a number of interesting features now taking shape. Front page story here.

42

 

[urbandreamer]

28 June 2014:

 

[interchange42]

New front page story with up-to-date photos here,

while here are some more angles on the growing building, starting at the southwest corner and moving around the building counter clockwise:

42

 

[urbandreamer]

17 July 2014: Here's what it looked like while walking the dog: