Toronto Hullmark Centre | 167.94m | 45s | Tridel | Kirkor

[alklay]

Developers give nothing to the city voluntarily. It all comes down to what the city asks for and what the city 'can' ask for (in light of the density involved and what the developer is seeking). If the city does not demand it, the developer does not provide it.

If one feels that Tridel is not 'giving' enough back for Hullmark, blame the city or the rules, but don't blame the developer.

 

[Conrad Black]

Other than the height how is this not like Empress Walk? And sitting on top of two subway stations why shouldn't the density be higher?

 

[droyces]

Go to the Tridel Hullmark Centre site,.. south-east corner of Yonge & Sheppard,... then walk 5-7 minutes north to the south-east corner of Yonge & Empress,... right across Yonge Street from North York City Centre and Mel Lastman Square. Ahhh, let me introduce you,... this is Empress Walk developed by Menkes Development.

Why is Menkes Development's Empress Walk significant here? Menkes Development's Empress Walk faced pretty much the same situation in the mid 90's that Tridel Hullmark Centre now faces. Proposing residential development within Area A (0% residential allowed) with Yonge Street frontage and subway access. City was strict about only wanting commercial offices buildings on Yonge Street frontage.

Take a look at those two Menkes Development's Empress Walk 32-33 storey condo towers,... both 100m tall,... add the artistic designed "pinnacles" on their roof top and these condo towers are about 116m. Take a nice little walk inside the Menkes Development's Empress Walk mall in the podium,.... now walk over to the back where Doris Street is,... oh dear, what's this,.... a public park right behinds Menkes Development's Empress Walk! Geee,... public space provided by the developer, Menkes Development,.... AND they were able to basically stay within the 100m limit ,... those are really huge "pinnacles" pushing the condo towers to 116m. And that seems to be the rule with regards to 100m height limit in the downtown North York area, none of the residential nor office part of the building exceed 100m height limit but if there is artistic merit with the roof design then that roof part only may exceed the 100m limit.

Gee,.. if Menkes Development can do that at Empress Walk,.... why can't this developer keep the Yonge-Dundas square public space,... and still build Tridel Hullmark Centre within the 100m limit???

How was Menkes Development's Empress Walk project able to convince the city to allow residential towers on land originally zoned as Area A (0% residential). Empress Walk developer had to give the city and community many concessions to build residential on a site zoned for offices, originally Area A 0% residential.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empress_Walk
- rebuild Earl Haig Secondary School
- rebuild McKee Public School
- rebuild Mitchell Field Community Centre
- re-align Doris Avenue to prevent thru-way traffic in a residential area connecting Bayview Avenue and Yonge Street.

Hmmmmm,.... Menkes Development Empress Walk project was able to 'pay for' a small public park behind Empress Walk,... 'pay for' rebuild Earl Haig Secondary School, 'pay for' rebuild McKee Public School, 'pay for' rebuild Mitchell Field Community Centre (BTW,.. really nice pool & indoor hockey rink!) and 'pay for' re-align Doris Avenue,... and since Menkes Development is still around and still building condo development in the North York area,... I say Menke Development was still able to 'make profit' on Empress Walk,... AND build Empress Walk without grossly exceeding the 100m height limit.

What has Tridel Hullmark Centre offered to the city so far? The southern strip of their site for an extension of Anndale Drive to meet Yonge,... for part of the eastern side of the North York downtown service road? The city have already finished widening Avondale Avenue from Yonge Street to Tradewind Avenue to serve as the linkage between Yonge Street and the eastern side of the North York downtown service road.

There are good developers and there are bad developers,...






Question is,.... "if you were the developer, would you hire + pay architects to design something" grossly exceeding the area height limit "that you know would never get built"? Yes,.. why, because developer want a tall building to maximize their own profit,... if developer think realistically, they might be able to get approval for 120m building in the end,... at first, developer will ask for a lot more,... and hope to negotiate down to 120m. Look across the street at Bazis Emerald Park,... originally asking for 49 & 40 storey,... now down to 39 & 30 storey,... and still too high! It really doesn't cost the developer much to design a building these days,... just copy it from another project (like Bazis Emerald Park being a reuse of their tower design in Astana, Kazakhstan,... and where is Kazakhstan exactly?). Since most floor design are the same,.. the cost of adding and chopping floors on the "design table" is minimal,... especially with the software they use.

Didnt' the same developer get approval (through the OMB) to do two 45 storey towers kitty corner to Empress walk? This is also on the subway and are to be 0% commercial. I believe that the OMB ruled that they didn't have to comply with the commercial aspect because of the 2 or 3 floor building approved by the city for the North/West corner of Yonge and Sheppard.

 

[threnody]

sunnyraytoronto I don't understand your obsession with artistic roofs. It's fine for a building to be 120m high, as long as the last 20m is uninhabited? At the end of the day, you can make a 120m building inhabitable to the top and look gorgeous, and you can make a 120m building with a 20m "artistic" roof look horrible. So what's the difference?

 

[sunnyraytoronto]

Buddy If this ressission lasts for a couple of years you will find the city will be offering perks to the developers instead of the other way around, in these rough times you should be happy and jumping for joy that a bunch of legitimate developers want to build in that area.

First, I would question your definition of "a bunch of legitimate developers",... especially when it comes to Bazis Emerald Park,.... and I would think a bunch of Bazis 1 Bloor East condo buyers and their lawsuits would also question whether Bazis International from Astana, Kazakhstan would classify as a "legitimate developer".

Secondly,.... anyone who has ever taken a first year university course in economics know this "ressission" is really already a depression,.... and we're spiralling downward so fast, we're not even close to a bottom yet. Anyways,... how long will this recession, depression or whatever will last? one, two, a few years??? How long will a building complex like Tridel Hullmark Centre last? About a hundred years,... obviously a building development shouldn't be looked at through any possible short term gains,... at the cost of something we'll all have to live with for the rest of our lives and that of generations to come,...

thank you the reality check ... this is something sunnyraytoronto needs ~

Here's some reality,... This is,.. well, I've already lost count,.. of how many iteration of the Hullmark Centre this proposal is,... 10, 15, 20 years,.... anyways, across the street, the original buildings on the Bazis Emerald Park site (pet store, plaza, former car dealership, some houses) have been torn down and mostly paved over with a parking lot over 15 years ago,.... so if the previous city of North York and the new amalgamated city of Toronto have waited this long for a suitable proposal for that site,... where they've gone through a full economic cycle,... starting with bust of early 90's to boom times and now going back to another bust,.... what makes you think the city will jump through hoops for a developer now?


As for the city of Toronto having to offer developers perks for developing on some of the city's most desirable area,... within the downtown North York area,... at the main intersection of Yonge & Sheppard, basically the geographical centre of the GTA,... at the subway interchange of the Yonge Subway line and the Sheppard Stubway,... on Yonge Street, Toronto's main street and the world's longest street,... within a stone throw of North America's busiest highway,.... If the city ever has to offer a developer any perks (financed directly or indirectly with our Toronto taxpayer dollars) for developing condos in this area,... pigs would be flying! If the day ever comes where the city of Toronto need to offer developer any perks to develop in an area like Yonge & Sheppard,... then the city would certainly have much bigger and more serious problems to worry about,... namely how the rest of the city have deteriorated to such an undesirable urban ghetto.

Today, the city's infrastructure already can not handle all the development that has already happend in the downtown North York area,... and that's all the development within the 100m height limit and density limit. Gridlock traffic throughout the day,... School kids who live in the area's condos are routinely bussed out of the area for school.

Now, as I mentioned to you on another thread, I don't have a problem with the city of Toronto giving tax breaks (which are really toronto taxpayer subsidizing developers) to developers for developing office buildings which is something Toronto as a city desperately needs,... But for the city of Toronto to give any taxpayer funded subsidy (perks) to developers for developing condos is crazy,... especially in an area where condos pop up like weeds,... that's 45-50 condos vs 1 office building in downtown North York since 1998 amalgamation.

The Sheppard-Yonge subway interchange station is the third busiest subway station in the TTC system,.. behind Bloor-Yonge and St.George station. The lower Sheppard-Yonge subway station of the Yonge subway line is serviced by a centre platform only,... the addition of two side platforms was discussed during construction of the Sheppard Subway line,... the upper Sheppard-Yonge subway station (built with 3 platform system) of the Sheppard subway line was constructed to accommodate the future addition of two side platforms for the lower Sheppard-Yonge subway station of the Yonge subway line. As the downtown North York area and the Sheppard subway corridor continues to grow,... the Sheppard-Yonge lower station will obviously need 2 sets of side platforms in addition the centre platform. In about 3-4 years, the lower Sheppard-Yonge subway station of the Yonge subway line should hit the density that triggered Union station platform extension. If the Tridel Hullmark Centre project goes ahead,... they'll basically be digging and filling a huge hole right were basically the entire length of a northbound side platform could be added. For Bazis Emerald Park on the other side of Yonge street,... they'll be digging and filling a huge hole that will cover about half the length of a southbound side platform,.... now wouldn't it be great if they could build these side platforms for the TTC,... for free. How likely is that to happen?

BTW, it's now costing TTC about $90 million to add one side platform at Union Station,... and probably cost around $450-500 million to renovate Bloor-Yonge station to add centre platforms on Yonge line and 2 side platforms on Bloor line,... it cost a lot more because these stations need to deal with existing building foundation supporting buildings above and beside them. At Sheppard-Yonge subway station,... existing building foundation isn't a problem yet,... right now there's only parking lots. It would be a lot cheaper for the TTC and city to build the two side platforms now,.... and it would be even cheaper for the developer who will be digging a hole there anyways, to build them.

How generous have the Tridel Hullmark Centre developer been so far?,... The Tridel Hullmark Centre proposal has 2 direct subway connection,.... the TTC estimate it'll cost about $6 million to renovate the existing Sheppard-Yonge subway station on TTC property with new entrances to accommodate the Tridel Hullmark Centre's 2 direct subway connection. Tridel Hullmark Centre wants the TTC and the city of Toronto (ie: us Toronto taxpayers and us TTC riders) to pay for it! The local city councillor, the city of Toronto and the TTC told Tridel Hullmark Centre exactly where they can stick their 2 direct subway access if they aren't willing to pay that $6 million cost.

 

[sunnyraytoronto]

it appears you like the public space proposed by Hullmark Centre, but not the tower above it ... do you expect anyone to just 'pay for' the development of public spaces and not 'make profit' from the associated project? basically you are asking developers to build the portion the community likes (plaza), and don't build portions the community dislikes (towers) ... I suppose who cares about the developer's profits ... frankly I don't think that is how business works

think about it ... if you were the developer, would you hire + pay architects to design something that you know would never get built ?

Your argument that developers should be able to build towers (164m) that grossly exceed an area height limit (100m) in exchange for public space (a Yonge-Dundas square type space) has another major flaw in it,.... You're basically saying developers need to sell X numbers of units in order to "'make profit' from the associated project" so they can afford "to just 'pay for' the development of public spaces",... and the only way to pack in X number of units is to build upward,... so that the residential condo tower (164m) grossly exceeds the 100m height limit for the area. The cross section picture of Tridel Hullmark Centre, you provided, actually highlights the flaw in your argument,... more specifically, the gap in your argument,... actually the gap between the two residential condo towers.

Instead of building two huge towers exceeding the area height limit,.... look at the gap between those two tower,.... the gap above the 5 storey podium and the rooftop space above the centre driveway,... the space on top of that podium can easily accommodate at least more 6 towers with the same footprint of Tridel Hullmark Centre's two proposed condo towers (those two little yellow rectangles in the picture you provided,.... 45-storey 5 Sheppard Avenue East and 37-storey 2 Anndale Drive). That's enough footprint space for at least 8 condo towers instead of the two proposed towers,... in other words, 4 times more space if the developer built Tridel Hullmark Centre out sideways, instead of just upward,.... thus to accommodate the same X number of units as in the original two proposed residential condo towers, they could actually build Tridel Hullmark Centre 4 times shorter than the proposed 164m! So even if a redesigned much wider one tower (with the footprint size of 8 towers) Tridel Hullmark Centre was built within the 100m limit,... it would have more than 2 times the existing number of units! But of course, to do this,.. the developer would actually have to design a building specifically for that site ,... instead of just reusing two generic cookie-cutter residential condo tower design and floor-plans and just designing a custom retail podium,...

Another solution,... having a smaller rooftop patio (which is only going to be used a few month of the year anyways) on top of the podium,... and build two residential condo towers that are each twice the footprint size of the existing proposed towers,... and these two towers would only need to be half the size of the proposed 164m (45 & 37 storey),... still have the exact same number of units,... and be well within the 100m height limit for the area.

Oh, well,... back to the drawing board,.... Gee,... I wonder what the next version of the Tridel Hullmark Centre will look like,...

 

[adma]

I dunno how much raw praise Empress Walk merits. Its bunkerness always struck me as a Y2K rendition of the Hudson's Bay Centre...

 

[Automation Gallery]

build two residential condo towers that are each twice the footprint size of the existing proposed towers,... and these two towers would only need to be half the size of the proposed 164m (45 & 37 storey),... still have the exact same number of units,... and be well within the 100m height limit for the area.

Wait a minute, you would rather see two mediocre large stubby blocks in that location in order to not surpass the 100 meter height limit. How boring.

 

[toraerach]

As for the city of Toronto having to offer developers perks for developing on some of the city's most desirable area,... within the downtown North York area,... at the main intersection of Yonge & Sheppard, basically the geographical centre of the GTA,... at the subway interchange of the Yonge Subway line and the Sheppard Stubway,... on Yonge Street, Toronto's main street and the world's longest street,... within a stone throw of North America's busiest highway,.... If the city ever has to offer a developer any perks (financed directly or indirectly with our Toronto taxpayer dollars) for developing condos in this area,... pigs would be flying! If the day ever comes where the city of Toronto need to offer developer any perks to develop in an area like Yonge & Sheppard,... then the city would certainly have much bigger and more serious problems to worry about,... namely how the rest of the city have deteriorated to such an undesirable urban ghetto.

First of all, the "longest street in the world" and "North America's busiest highway" are very arguable points. Secondly, if this intersection is as important as you say it is, why should development be limited to 100m? And what's this urban ghetto nonsense?

Today, the city's infrastructure already can not handle all the development that has already happend in the downtown North York area,... and that's all the development within the 100m height limit and density limit. Gridlock traffic throughout the day,... School kids who live in the area's condos are routinely bussed out of the area for school.

The area has and will continue to densify with or without these two developments. Capping buildings at 100m will not make that big of a difference. Since you go on in your post to advocate the same density on the sites spread out in more towers, I don't see how you can argue that height alone will make these problems worse. I'm not saying the problems don't exist, but a 100m limit won't make them go away.

The Sheppard-Yonge subway interchange station is the third busiest subway station in the TTC system,.. behind Bloor-Yonge and St.George station. The lower Sheppard-Yonge subway station of the Yonge subway line is serviced by a centre platform only,... the addition of two side platforms was discussed during construction of the Sheppard Subway line,... the upper Sheppard-Yonge subway station (built with 3 platform system) of the Sheppard subway line was constructed to accommodate the future addition of two side platforms for the lower Sheppard-Yonge subway station of the Yonge subway line. As the downtown North York area and the Sheppard subway corridor continues to grow,... the Sheppard-Yonge lower station will obviously need 2 sets of side platforms in addition the centre platform. In about 3-4 years, the lower Sheppard-Yonge subway station of the Yonge subway line should hit the density that triggered Union station platform extension. If the Tridel Hullmark Centre project goes ahead,... they'll basically be digging and filling a huge hole right were basically the entire length of a northbound side platform could be added. For Bazis Emerald Park on the other side of Yonge street,... they'll be digging and filling a huge hole that will cover about half the length of a southbound side platform,.... now wouldn't it be great if they could build these side platforms for the TTC,... for free. How likely is that to happen?

BTW, it's now costing TTC about $90 million to add one side platform at Union Station,... and probably cost around $450-500 million to renovate Bloor-Yonge station to add centre platforms on Yonge line and 2 side platforms on Bloor line,... it cost a lot more because these stations need to deal with existing building foundation supporting buildings above and beside them. At Sheppard-Yonge subway station,... existing building foundation isn't a problem yet,... right now there's only parking lots. It would be a lot cheaper for the TTC and city to build the two side platforms now,.... and it would be even cheaper for the developer who will be digging a hole there anyways, to build them.

Not to split hairs, but I believe Kennedy is still busier than Sheppard-Yonge. Buildings will go up at this intersection, and yes it would be nice if they built in the Yonge side platforms sooner rather than later instead of waiting until the situation gets out of control, but I don't see how these particular projects will make such an expansion impossible while shorter ones would not.

This project might have things wrong with it, but it really hurts your credibility when you come on here and write variations of the same long posts again and again while ignoring some very important points made by others here. You obviously care about your neighbourhood and this city a lot, and that's very admirable, but please recognize that we all want the best for North York Centre here. We really need to separate the various problems with this proposal away from the 100m limit issue. Personally I'd like to see this and the Bazis project get built - but I'd also like to see schools get built, transit improved, and more office space in the area (when it's needed). If one of the most important intersections in the city gets buildings over 100m, I don't see a problem with that - I might have had some sympathy with you on that one point at least, but I'm sorry, your "artistic roofs above 100m" thing just didn't make sense - either you are for the limit or you are not.

 

[sunnyraytoronto]

Other than the height how is this not like Empress Walk? And sitting on top of two subway stations why shouldn't the density be higher?

Tridel Hullmark Centre wants 5.98 FSI density. The site is already zoned for 4.5 density,... which is basically consistent with everything else in the downtown North York area within the service ring roads,... basically 100m to 200m east and west of Yonge Street in downtown North York (a few sites have slightly higher density after OMB).

In a perfect world,... a site at a subway interchange would deserve higher density because we would like to assume that residents would be good urbanites using the subway and public transit all the time,... but that's usually not the case! Tridel Hullmark Centre is asking for 1,249 parking spaces,... for 825 condo units,... so Tridel Hullmark Centre is marketing to people who wants to live on the subway line with direct subway access,.... but also want to drive and drive 1.5 cars per condo unit.

The traffic gridlock in this area is already rediculous (recent city of Toronto traffic study shows during AM peak, pedestrian can walk faster than cars can drive in Yonge & Sheppard area!),... the last thing it needs is another 1,249 cars from another high density condo development. This is what happens when the city allows 45-50 new condo development and only one office building in the area since amalgamation,... most new residents don't work in the area and even though they're on the subway line, they'll drive to work. This is terrible urban planning!

 

[taal]

Tridel Hullmark Centre wants 5.98 FSI density. The site is already zoned for 4.5 density,... which is basically consistent with everything else in the downtown North York area within the service ring roads,... basically 100m to 200m east and west of Yonge Street in downtown North York (a few sites have slightly higher density after OMB).

In a perfect world,... a site at a subway interchange would deserve higher density because we would like to assume that residents would be good urbanites using the subway and public transit all the time,... but that's usually not the case! Tridel Hullmark Centre is asking for 1,249 parking spaces,... for 825 condo units,... so Tridel Hullmark Centre is marketing to people who wants to live on the subway line with direct subway access,.... but also want to drive and drive 1.5 cars per condo unit.

The traffic gridlock in this area is already rediculous (recent city of Toronto traffic study shows during AM peak, pedestrian can walk faster than cars can drive in Yonge & Sheppard area!),... the last thing it needs is another 1,249 cars from another high density condo development. This is what happens when the city allows 45-50 new condo development and only one office building in the area since amalgamation,... most new residents don't work in the area and even though they're on the subway line, they'll drive to work. This is terrible urban planning!

I take it you live there. You know, if you were to move out that would be 1 less car (I take it you drive) another 1,248 and we'll be set.

 

[sunnyraytoronto]

if you are referring to houses SW of Annadale + Tradewind, that is being redeveloped by Menkes for the Savvy Condos project ... but houses SE of Annadale + Tradewind should be staying (they are out of the North York Centre Secondary Plan boundary, which is the limit for high density development)

With all due respect,... I wouldn't "bet the house" that those houses South-East of Anndale and Tradewind Avenue would be staying, especially those along Tradewind Avenue,.... even though they are technically outside of the North York downtown Secondary Plan boundary. When building the downtown North York eastern service ring road through this area,... Tradewind Avenue will be widened from 2 lanes to 4 lanes taking out the properties along the west side of Tradewind Avenue from Anndale Drive to Avondale Avenue. And those on the east side could eventually be gone too,...

If you're familiar with the Downtown North York service ring road system,.... you'll know that the city has an interesting way of building them while trying to protect the existing residential area just outside the North York downtown Secondary Plan boundary. Basically, when the city builds the downtown North York service ring road to divert traffic off Yonge Street, a local service road for Yonge Street,... the city also tries to build another set of service roads for the service road! To protect the existing local single residential properties just outside the North York downtown Secondary Plan boundary (ie the main downtown North York service ring roads) from excessive car traffic comming from the main service roads,... the city physically close off a lot of those smaller residential streets from the main service roads and limits the number or road links,... but instead of having a bunch of dead end residential streets the city sets up a series of parallel 2 lane mini service road just outside the main 4 lane service ring road for the existing local single residential properties. Look at a map of how the city built Doris Avenue as a service ring road between Sheppard Ave East and Church Avenue,... look just east of Doris Avenue north of Sheppard Avenue East and you'll see all these little looping streets servicing the existing local single residential properties,... instead of dead ends at Doris. Little looping streets like Gladys Allison Place, the loop between Parkview Ave & Kingsdale Ave and the loop between Norton Ave & McKee Ave,... BTW, as I recall, part of the original Doris Avenue is now Gladys Allison Place.

Anyways,... if the city impliments the mini service road system the existing Bloomington Place could be extended southward past Avondale Avenue to Oakburn Cres,... and there is also usually a 25 feet or so wide boulevard between the main 4 lane service road and the 2 lane mini service road,.... if this happens, then some of those houses south east of Anndale Drive and Tradewind Avenue along the eastern part of Tradewind Avenue, just outside the North York Centre Secondary Plan boundary but inside the traffic study area,... will be gone with the wind!

 

[Dan416]

I'm sorry but I find this all very confusing. I looked at the PDF earlier in this thread, but it only dealt with the immediate area and not this whole ring road system everyone is talking about. If anything, it looks to me like they're destroying the grid-system streets near Yonge St. I thought a grid system was GOOD? Can anyone post a set of maps from before all these changes, the current situation, and what they're aiming for overall? If not I understand, but it'd be appreciated and would put this whole NYCC thing in perspective.

 

[Automation Gallery]

+

 

[Solaris]

Your argument that developers should be able to build towers (164m) that grossly exceed an area height limit (100m) in exchange for public space (a Yonge-Dundas square type space) has another major flaw in it,.... You're basically saying developers need to sell X numbers of units in order to "'make profit' from the associated project" so they can afford "to just 'pay for' the development of public spaces",... and the only way to pack in X number of units is to build upward,... so that the residential condo tower (164m) grossly exceeds the 100m height limit for the area. The cross section picture of Tridel Hullmark Centre, you provided, actually highlights the flaw in your argument,... more specifically, the gap in your argument,... actually the gap between the two residential condo towers.

Instead of building two huge towers exceeding the area height limit,.... look at the gap between those two tower,.... the gap above the 5 storey podium and the rooftop space above the centre driveway,... the space on top of that podium can easily accommodate at least more 6 towers with the same footprint of Tridel Hullmark Centre's two proposed condo towers (those two little yellow rectangles in the picture you provided,.... 45-storey 5 Sheppard Avenue East and 37-storey 2 Anndale Drive). That's enough footprint space for at least 8 condo towers instead of the two proposed towers,... in other words, 4 times more space if the developer built Tridel Hullmark Centre out sideways, instead of just upward,.... thus to accommodate the same X number of units as in the original two proposed residential condo towers, they could actually build Tridel Hullmark Centre 4 times shorter than the proposed 164m! So even if a redesigned much wider one tower (with the footprint size of 8 towers) Tridel Hullmark Centre was built within the 100m limit,... it would have more than 2 times the existing number of units! But of course, to do this,.. the developer would actually have to design a building specifically for that site ,... instead of just reusing two generic cookie-cutter residential condo tower design and floor-plans and just designing a custom retail podium,...

Another solution,... having a smaller rooftop patio (which is only going to be used a few month of the year anyways) on top of the podium,... and build two residential condo towers that are each twice the footprint size of the existing proposed towers,... and these two towers would only need to be half the size of the proposed 164m (45 & 37 storey),... still have the exact same number of units,... and be well within the 100m height limit for the area.

Oh, well,... back to the drawing board,.... Gee,... I wonder what the next version of the Tridel Hullmark Centre will look like,...

so you are suggesting shorter buildings but more towers on the site ? or alternatively shorter but bulkier (larger footprint) buildings ... so concrete jungle is good but 'point towers' which leaves majority of the site open is bad ???

if so, I'm officially done responding to you ... if you think that is how City Building and Urban Design should be done, you should really go read up on 'Urban Design 101' or something

the current Hullmark Centre design achieves density without 'over developing' the site (leaving open spaces) ... jamming the site full of buildings would be something that a greedy evil developer would do