Toronto Nicholas Residences | ?m | 35s | Urban Capital | Core Architects

I truly admire the passion you all share for the street you live on (a charming street among dozens in this neighbourhood) but I believe your group fighting the inevitable lost you an opportunity to possibly have some input on what really matters here; how the building will be designed at street level to truly enhance your community.

AnnH said:
About 75 people attended. The community was entirely united on the development, and that a tall tower isn't appropriate for the site.

The City Planner presented (developer skulked in the corner) The Planner had with her an incredbily amateurish displays of the new building. Looked like a bad Grade 6 Science Fair Project.

Notably missing - any colour renderings of the design. (Urban Capital did an entire presentation with renderings for the last meeting on November 8th)

Kyle Rae who vehemently opposed the first submission of 44 storeys sat quietly in the back. (Very rare for him to be quiet)

Final report hasn't been written.
Developper has not purchased the site, but rather has an agreement to purchase.
Click to expand...

Ah, so everyone cowered in fear of your local group. Congratulations :rolleyes:

marsh said:
I attended the meeting and was very dissappointed by the presenation. My impression is that we were basically being told that the new proposal is what is going to be despite vociferous opposition by the community.
Click to expand...

Perhaps the developer knew what reception they were going to get so they wrote your community group off?

It sounds like they were prepared to take constructive input from the community and the developers got strong opposition to anything they were prepared to amend. If the developer took this meeting seriously they would have shown up with a proper presentation, sounds like they had an idea that they were in a no-win situation so they made little effort to put together a meaningful presentation.

I appreciate the fact that the developer tried to address our some of our concerns. But fundamentally, the site is not appropriate for a high rise tower - I don't care what you do to minimize the visual impact on the street -a high rise tower is still a highrise tower.
Click to expand...

So there you go, it sounds like they just sailed through the consultation and dismissed your group which had the mandate of putting a stop to the project. Intensification will continue downtown, especially close to the subway lines. The only way to grow the downtown area is up.

We recognize that the we live in the downtown core and that the downtown core will be intensified. But intensification doesn't mean putting a highrise tower on every available plot of land. The fact that there are highrises on St. Mary's doesn't justify putting more up. Wrongs don't make a right. The city needs breathing room too.
Click to expand...

I don't think you understand the area you live in or are emotionally blinded. The fact that you criticize the highrises that surround this area - and what is proposed proves the point.

There was an excellent article in the Toronto Star by Christopher Hume - What Yonge and Bloor Could Be - where two landscape architects proposed developing the current lot where 1 Bloor E. is supposed to be developed into a public square. There are two comments made in the article that are describe exactly why the community opposes the St. Nicholas Street development:

"We want people on the streets, not in their condos. It's time to look at what infrastructure is and fine a new balance"

"What's important is that its a way to make the city more livable.. That's where the focus is now - making livable cities".
Click to expand...

Once the legal mess that is 1BE gets sorted, this or another major project will be planned, sold and built. This is no place for a permanent public square.
To put more people onto the street means building more homes. In the downtown area, that means building up.

St. Nicholas Street acts as a public space to the community. It makes the city more liveable from the simple joy that many people get from walking and living on the street.
Click to expand...

How will this change with the 29 storey proposal? See casaguy's excellent post (#116) regarding the two Radio City towers and it's effect on Mutual Street.

Many European cities are highly densely populated but their skylines are not covered with skyscrapers and they make room for parks and squares to provide people breathing and living space - think of Paris, Barcelona.
Click to expand...

Ridiculous comparison. Think Toronto. I'm so tired of comparisons to New York, Montreal, Vancouver and Chicago. Can we please just be Toronto and learn to enjoy all of what this city has to offer? It's smart to take cues from older cities with what does and doesn't work, but not to compare.
If you walk around the neighborhood you'll find plenty of safe, beautiful "breathing spaces".

I think our current development policies are appalling. We put up these condos willy nilly on the basis of intensification. But are we really doing? Most of the square footage of units in most of these new buildings get ridiculously smaller and smaller each year. How are people supposed to live in 500, 600 square feet units? What happens if people marry, find a partner? Have kids? They are not going to stay in these units - they will move and if they can't find a bigger home in Toronto that they can afford - they will move to the suburbs, taking jobs and tax revenues with them. What has made Toronto such a wonderful city is the fact that historically people have stayed in the downtown core and raised families, unlike many American cities.
Click to expand...

More families downtown, absolutely. Willy Nilly? No. 500-600 sq. ft. homes? No.

In my view the city has sold its soul to developers to generate immediate tax revenue without any thought of the longterm consequences. We're fooling ourselves if we think our current intensification policy is accomplishing any thing other than lining the pockets of developers. And we will all pay the price for our shortsightedness.
Click to expand...

Building homes for people to live in is lining the pockets of developers? I see. You must dislike food stores too, another business that we mortals require which lines it's pockets with the money we spend to buy food.

I'm curious as to how will we pay for this "shortsightedness"?

marsh said:
just to clarify in response to the latest post -

my comments about the type of condos being built wasn't necessarily restricted to St. Nicholas street - though we do have families living here! And there is day care on the corner of St. Mary and St. Nicholas, which basically will be cast in shadows for a great part of the day if the proposed building goes up.

second - as to "family" I wasn't necessarily referring to traditional husband/wife with 2.0 kids. My points are
- 500/600 square foot boxes that typify most condo developments these days really are designed for 1 maybe 2 people.
Click to expand...

A 500-600 sq. ft. "box" does not typify most new condo developments, that is most often the smallest sized suite. A family of four can live in a two bedroom condo/apartment and they do. I agree that more three bedrooms should be built but it seems that the condo market doesn't support a whole lot of them downtown yet. I grew up in a three bedroom post war home in Scarborough with a mother, father, three other brothers and a dog. We grew up very happily with no emotional scars. Bunk-beds were the solution in those days.
If this building gets approved through the OMB at 40 storeys or through the City at 25 stories, shadows on the daycare will be the same. Very early in the morning the sun comes up in the east, the only time this proposal will block precious sunlight. Further, you'd get none of those dreadful shadows on your street because the proposal is to the north.

- intensfication should be more about just blindly cramming people into an area, it should think about how people live in the city
Click to expand...

Check out the City of Toronto Official Plan & Toronto Tall Buildings Design Guidelines, both are online at the City of Toronto website. I think you'll find planning isn't as willy nilly as you may think nor does it blindly cram people into an area.

- Toronto has a rich history of diversity and I want to preserve that, I think a mix of population - young, old, singles, families, different cultures, backgrounds and beliefs will make Toronto a vibrant and growing city in the future.
Click to expand...

How in the world is Toronto's cultural diversity going to be negatively impacted by this development, or a hundred of these types of projects?
 
DT: really good post, other than - - -

Why does it bother you that people look to other places for examples of 'how to do it'? We compare things, everything, all the time. It's natural, and it's helpful! We learn from others, including, sometimes, that we already do it better! Relax about the comparisons, they will never, ever end...

42
 
interchange42 said:
DT: really good post, other than - - -

Why does it bother you that people look to other places for examples of 'how to do it'? We compare things, everything, all the time. It's natural, and it's helpful! We learn from others, including, sometimes, that we already do it better! Relax about the comparisons, they will never, ever end...

42
Click to expand...

No, looking to other cities for inspiration, how to do it, what works & what doesn't elsewhere is just plain smart for a young city like ours. It's the nearly daily references to anything Toronto compared to other major cities that grates me sometimes. I think of a recent reference of Bay Street to 5th Avenue in NYC, no comparison so why? It's those kind of references. Sometimes I get the feeling that we have an inferiority complex here (which, perhaps we do) so we have to draw references to other cities to justify how great "this" and "that" is here in Toronto.
 
Well, I agree with you that in some cases the comparisons are ill thought out, and can be just plain tiresome. That's definitely the case here. Bloor-Yonge could never have the feel of the kind of European square that Marsh is talking about, and neither will that be brought to St. Nicholas Street. Still, I am sympathetic to concerns that St. Nicholas Street may lose its character: I like the street, and I'd likely to see it stay homey...

but I've tried to get across to the community members here that they'll have to work with the developers if they are to have any chance of influencing the design. Flat out opposition is not going to get them what they want when a 24 storey building exists across the street from where Urban Capital proposes to build. Precedents will be precedents after all.

Marsh seems to think the 29 storey design may be a fait-accompli at this point, and it might be if the residents are going to continue to vehemently oppose this development. If they do, and if Kyle Rae takes a recommendation to City Council to vote against this, then Urban Capital will be able to go to the OMB and get substantially what they are after. If, however, the community decides to work with the developer to mitigate its impact to a degree, they may get somewhere as the developer will be eager to avoid all the costs that the OMB hearing will entail. If they sit down together, the community could potentially get a couple more floors knocked off to bring it closer in height to the 24 storey tower on St. Mary, and they might get more setbacks, etc. They won't know what they could have gotten if they aren't willing to understand the situation they are in though, and sit down and discuss things.

42
 
So, the residents are being led by someone who is trying to win their case with spurious arguments? Shawn Tracy isn't helping you guys if that quote about putting up a tower at Nathan Philips Square is the best he could come up with.

Marsh - you guys may not like what's happening, but you will not be able to stop something just because you don't like it: if the fight continues, it will all come down to planning law and precedents as the OMB interprets them for your situation. Convince the residents to work with the developers and you may get some more concessions.

42
 
Confusion - that's unfair. What if you loved your home but felt your lifestyle was threatened? They might as well stay and fight (but they need to be better prepared, more realistic in what they can achieve, and a bit craftier...).

42
 
interchange42 said:
What if you loved your home but felt your lifestyle was threatened?
Click to expand...

I live in the area. I know the area. St Nic is great, but the area is in desparate need of some cleanup/development.

So what if I've got better things to do than go to these community meetings to listen to Marsh complain about stupid things. A tower done right can easily fit into its surroundings. Even Casa provides a nice view in this area and it is 50+ stories! Light is not an issue here, there are plenty of low rises in the area.

Final thoughts, I know many people in this neighbourhood, young, old, and somewhere in between. These residents going to that meeting do not reflect the views of the community. They reflect the views of a small few likely with private interests.
 
If by those "small few" with private interests you mean the abutting homeowners along St. Nicholas, well, they are the community, and they get more consideration as they are so close to the subject property... so it's a bit harsh telling Marsh to move... when really Marsh and his neighbours just have to come to terms with the limited power they have to mold this new development.

42
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top