Toronto Pinnacle One Yonge | 345.5m | 105s | Pinnacle | Hariri Pontarini

Filip said:
That park should really be built exactly like that. We need more formal green spaces.
Click to expand...


I agree but I'm wondering how all this impacts the LCBO lands?
The city has exacted more than half the site for parkland and roadway dedication - I have to assume the developer will be getting some major height or I don't see how it would be profitable given the cost of the property.
 
Its' going to be commercial office space on the LCBO lands, I believe. Maybe that helps offset the land cost? Not sure. But the plaza looks great as-is. Build this. In several places in the City. This millennium.
 
Adjei said:
The park is gorgeous. Is it part of the plan?
Click to expand...

Not to sound like an asshole - but did you even bother to read the story about this latest development?
 
NBGtect said:
Its' going to be commercial office space on the LCBO lands, I believe. Maybe that helps offset the land cost? Not sure. But the plaza looks great as-is. Build this. In several places in the City. This millennium.
Click to expand...
Some of the LCBO Lands will be commercial space. From the current front page story: "To separate the [Redpath sugar] refinery from new residential development, the City is planning for a park on the north side of Queens Quay immediately east of the Pinnacle redevelopment, and office buildings further east."

To expand upon that: north of Harbour Street, the LCBO lands will be primarily residential, while south of it, half of that will be park, and half will be commercial office space (making for a quarter of the total being commercial office).

42
 
Big Daddy said:
I agree but I'm wondering how all this impacts the LCBO lands?
The city has exacted more than half the site for parkland and roadway dedication - I have to assume the developer will be getting some major height or I don't see how it would be profitable given the cost of the property.
Click to expand...

Well - this conceptual idea for a park is on the LCBO lands.
 
ChesterCopperpot said:
Well - this conceptual idea for a park is on the LCBO lands.
Click to expand...

Yes, I realize that, I was simply hypothesizing that, given the amount of land taken from the LCBO lands for park and roadway, the remaining lands must have been granted significant height allowances to compensate the developer.

The park as shown is awesome and it would be great to see more such parks within the city - even at the cost of additional height allowances.
 
Play nice! (Merry Xmas.)

42
 
Big Daddy said:
This I hope will change but is currently one awful wind swept waste land of a plaza.

No fountains, no benches, no greenery - nothing.
No imagination?

I Should say though, the towers look fabulous - very creative. I hope they aren't all glass - but I'm also sure that glass is more "cost effective", so...

8C4CD2B7-4C8D-4FC5-B28A-46FC671F00E9.jpg
Click to expand...


There are deciduous trees bordering this plaza. That's greenery, at least during warmer months. That's something. Other additions to this plaza might be nice -- but how necessary are they? How practical would these additions be to how people use this space? Public spaces don't always have to be occupied by our junk, even if eloquent and aesthetically pleasing. The residential density of Southcore is increasing; this Yonge Street project reflects what's already been built here, what's currently being produced: while considering its own population effects. This plaza looks like something built for a big city with lots of pedestrians. I like it, and am looking forward to subsequent renditions as this proposal changes. The only thing I might want to change so far, to bring it back to greenery once more, is, I'd plant coniferous trees instead. This is Canada. Our cities would benefit from greenery during the winter.
 
With all the proposed projects in the works, 2016 can be the transformational year for architecture and public spaces in Toronto. If half get the go ahead without much cheapening, the city will be reaching for the top level. I was born in a much, much different Toronto 67 years ago. Enjoy the ride in this remarkable city, I am.
 
Big Daddy said:
Yes, I realize that, I was simply hypothesizing that, given the amount of land taken from the LCBO lands for park and roadway, the remaining lands must have been granted significant height allowances to compensate the developer.

The park as shown is awesome and it would be great to see more such parks within the city - even at the cost of additional height allowances.
Click to expand...

Wouldn't the price of the land be more than enough compensation? Lol, It won't be free even if the province sets it aside for park space. It's the developer's problem if it's over them paying too much for the property.

Worst thing the city can do is subsidize the purchase price by allowing increased density that would otherwise require more than a minor variance. This is not how you design cities.
 
maestro said:
Wouldn't the price of the land be more than enough compensation? Lol, It won't be free even if the province sets it aside for park space. It's the developer's problem if it's over them paying too much for the property.

Worst thing the city can do is subsidize the purchase price by allowing increased density that would otherwise require more than a minor variance. This is not how you design cities.
Click to expand...

It's in the city's interest to have a well designed, strong and successful development on this plot. To simply say "it's the developer's problem" doesn't answer the city's needs.

If there isn't significant profit opportunity, it reduces the list of interested developers and consequently we end up with a poorly designed development, built cheap and poorly operated and maintained. Frankly we have enough of these kind of developments, we need something much more and simply throwing zoning requirements at it doesn't solve the problem. There has to be balance to attract better developers.
 
Big Daddy said:
It's in the city's interest to have a well designed, strong and successful development on this plot. To simply say "it's the developer's problem" doesn't answer the city's needs.

If there isn't significant profit opportunity, it reduces the list of interested developers and consequently we end up with a poorly designed development, built cheap and poorly operated and maintained. Frankly we have enough of these kind of developments, we need something much more and simply throwing zoning requirements at it doesn't solve the problem. There has to be balance to attract better developers.
Click to expand...

Higher profit does not necessarily equal better design.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top