Solaris
Senior Member
wow the builder went from 44s to 29s in attempt to appease resident's concerns ... and yet certain neighbourhood NIMBYs just don't know when to stop pushing their luck
Toronto Nicholas Residences | ?m | 35s | Urban Capital | Core Architects
- Thread starter jaborandi
- Start date
androiduk
Senior Member
These residents aren't employing a very good strategy here. The tower will get built and when your standing on the street, there isn't too much difference between 30 & 40 storeys. They'd be much better off telling the developer they won't oppose, say 40 storeys, if the developer invests more $ in neighbourhood improvements. Better than having the developer go to the OMB and the neighbourhood will have no choices and will be forced to take what's given to them.
Urban Shocker
Doyenne
Yes. With the foreshortening effect, standing at the base of a point tower and looking up ought not to affright plain neighbourly folks. When you do so at Pure Spirit, for instance, the pedestrian-level podium building forms a greater visual weight than the tower. But it's the idea of a tall building that NIMBYs object to, not the reality of how it is experienced up close.
greenleaf
Senior Member
What kills me about this development is that residences are framing St. Nicholas like it's existing in a vacuum. oy.
I haven't had a chance to attend previous meetings, but my schedule is free for this one.
I haven't had a chance to attend previous meetings, but my schedule is free for this one.
urbanvillageboy
New Member
I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that I'm glad that there is strong resistance to this development. I like high rises and the increasing density too but I also like contrast and the special little districts like St. Nicholas and
St. Joseph Streets which are worth preserving as is. There are plenty of places to build high rises but few areas with the charm and low rise architectural interest and variety that you find on these streets. I don't live on either street but I often walk down them because of the pleasure it gives me and the wonderful contrast to the noise and chaos of Yonge St. and most of its adjoining streets. I'd like to see this district left alone and both this project and 5 St. Joseph sent packing elsewhere.
St. Joseph Streets which are worth preserving as is. There are plenty of places to build high rises but few areas with the charm and low rise architectural interest and variety that you find on these streets. I don't live on either street but I often walk down them because of the pleasure it gives me and the wonderful contrast to the noise and chaos of Yonge St. and most of its adjoining streets. I'd like to see this district left alone and both this project and 5 St. Joseph sent packing elsewhere.
dt_toronto_geek
Superstar
Personally I don't disagree with most of your points however it isn't like a highrise is being slapped down in between homes in the middle St. Nicholas Street. It's at an underused corner with no homes north, east or west of there. Just some retail and apartments north of St. Mary St., La Place Marie apartments to the west and the Scientolgoy building to the east - and steps to Yonge Street.
Regardless that there are empty lots begging for development, this is downtown Toronto and it's going to continue changing and evolving in spaces like this, like it or not. I'd rather see a project like this here than tearing down rows of beautiful Victorians because "there are plenty of them" (i.e. Charles St. W.).
cdr108
Senior Member
I will not forgive Minto for the homes demise, especially if the rumours about putting St. Thomas on hold are true !
androiduk
Senior Member
For Rent signs are up around St. Regis College at St. Nicholas and St. Mary. Great spot for a high end restaurant.
androiduk
Senior Member
Did anyone make it to the meeting last night?
AnnH
New Member
Community Meeting last night
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.
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.
cdr108
Senior Member
If that's the case, and community opposition is so strong ... then the developer may just cancel the 'agreement to purchase' since they have no money invested on the land beyond the planning, etc.
No money or love lost to the developer ...
but I do see this site and even the whole block of Charles/Yonge/St. Mary/St. Joseph being re-developed in the future during the next RE boom.
marsh
Active Member
St Nicholas Street Development
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.
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.
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.
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".
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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".
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.
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.
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.
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.
adma
Superstar
But when it comes to the 67 St Nicholas zone, the tide's turned away from "family-type" accomodation for decades now. It's long been the natural domain for students, singles, queers--you can't readily force that particular family-friendly genie back into the bottle, when it's scarcely been there within our own lifetimes.
And in practice, too, the cultural demographics of the area are such that (except for the St James Town multiethnics whom I *can* see moving to Brampton or Mississauga) I can't see a lot of them naturally inclined t/w the kinds of Jon & Kate + 8 (okay, I'm exaggerating) families that'd require them decamping for affordable Port Perry or whatever. By and large, they remain "city people"--and if they move t/w larger-family affordability, it could just as well be to older inner suburbs or places like Hamilton which, well, could use more like them...
marsh
Active Member
st nicholas street
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.
- intensfication should be more about just blindly cramming people into an area, it should think about how people live in the city
- 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.
- but I just don't see that being fostered under the current development policy of the city
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.
- intensfication should be more about just blindly cramming people into an area, it should think about how people live in the city
- 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.
- but I just don't see that being fostered under the current development policy of the city
confusion
Active Member
You're just a bit out of touch with reality. Most of the surface lots and buildings are all privately owned, and the city-owned property is not going to be sold or made into a park because the city is a business, and they usually don't have very much extra money. It is very rare for the city to turn over new parkland, and when they do, it is on their own terms, they really don't care what you think.
Toronto is what Toronto is. So let's work with what we've got. Let's not scare away every developer, annoy the hell out of them and then get some crap lowrise instead. My only demands for a new building is that it is nice, and in 50 years people will still think it looks nice. Midrange, small, or supertall, doesn't matter.