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

[balenciaga]

I don't see anything wrong with those areas (which are also much denser than they look), but the widespread desire to maintain those areas more or less as is forever and always does impact how the City is densified.

In the context of the debate around Toronto's 1 Yonges being "too asian" and "not European enough," the wide swathes of Toronto we opt to keep low-ish (or moderate) density to some extent requires that developable sites be used to the maximum extent.

As I understand the official plan, one of the goals of downtown's condofication is specifically to head off any need to redevelop low rise downtown. So, the maybe excessive densities we see in some areas shouldn't just be seen in abstraction from low-rise downtown.

Yes, people always claim "it is fine the way it is", when it really is not. Take another look at the first photo (Huron street), http://goo.gl/maps/u69PC
is it really what our downtown should look like? Do these houses on the street we see really give Toronto "charm" and "character"?? Maybe I am crazy today, but they just look horrible to me. People will say why Toronto looks like Nebraska, instead of "how charming" seeing them.

Yes, Toronto is not European enough. Have we visited Europe? Do we see all these 2 storey houses all over central Paris, Vienna, Prague or Barcelona? I didn't. Europe may not have skyscrapers, but they don't have nearly as many low rise SFH either. Their cities have density 3X or 5X of Toronto. These houses don't give Toronto "character". They just make us less urban. They are really not that different from a pure suburb in North York or Etobicoke.

As to Asian cities, let's not worry about it. Toronto will never look like a big Asian city, not in 100 years. The entire GTA has the population of a mid-sized Asian city probably nobody has heard of. We simply don't have the density to remotely resemble Shanghai, Hong Kong or Seoul.

 

[SP!RE]

Alright, I'll be the first to step up and say it: Those quiet little residential streets you despise so much in this city DO have so much character and they are to be cherished, (and yes, where appropriate, protected).

As for the "they just make us less urban", this proves to me that you don't have much of a grasp on what makes a good city. If your measure of a city's quality is tossing around words like "urban" without even grasping what that means (i.e. many definitions of urbanity would include streets like those low-rise streets you pictured above) and setting that as our standard, then well... you are not worth debating with.

Downtown Toronto's low-rise residential streets and neighbourhoods aren't broken, and they don't need "fixing".

To sum up:

Yes, people always claim "it is fine the way it is", when it really is not. Take another look at the first photo (Huron street), http://goo.gl/maps/u69PC
is it really what our downtown should look like? Do these houses on the street we see really give Toronto "charm" and "character"?? Maybe I am crazy today, but they just look horrible to me. People will say why Toronto looks like Nebraska, instead of "how charming" seeing them.

1) Yes, we do like those cute lowrise neighbourhoods as they are.
2) I'm looking at that photo and I see charm and character.
3) Yes, you are crazy. I don't know one person in real life (UrbanToronto doesn't count) who doesn't appreciate these little streets. I know plenty of people who live on them and love their neighbourhoods. Meanwhile I live in a condo near Queen's Quay and would kill for some of the qualities of those neighbourhoods where I live. Unfortunately, such qualities simply can't be replicated in new development.
4) I've ever once heard Toronto compared to Nebraska. I've heard Corktown referred to as a charming small Ontario town dropped into the middle of downtown Toronto, but only as a compliment.

 

[Lenser]

These house don't give Toronto charm and character. They make downtown look like a suburb and prevent it from achieving higher density and vibrancy. These are nothing but sleepy streets occupied by households of 3-4. More importantly, it is not like Toronto has a shortage of houses or streets like them. In fact, the entire city is full of them, isn't it? To me, unless with exceptional value such as the Osgood Hall, 2 storey buildings belong to the suburbs, not downtown. They are a waste of space. Yes, history and blah blah but as I mentioned, we have this kind of houses everywhere outside downtown, don't we?

I don't like sterile and bland vertical communities like CityPlace. Not liking 2 story old houses doesn't mean I am a fan of green glass towers. I think replace them 4-12 storey apartment and other commercial buildings make more sense. I don't particularly dislike Victorian houses. I just don't like the fact they are 2 storeys and therefore waste too much land which should be occupied by more residents/businesses. King street East type of character is what is ideal. No crazy high rises glass boxed but no two storey houses wasting precious downtown land as well.

Once again, I am delighted that not all subscribe to this draconian prescription for Toronto. I note in passing your recent comments that democracy is beginning to truly bug you and your burgeoning admiration for autocratic governments which bypass the will of the people in all matters relating to them - including city planning. Your bald contention that two story homes do nothing more than 'waste land' strikes me as severely limited and woefully ignorant of what makes cities liveable. I contend that cities have room for all sorts of neighbourhoods - and densities which vary a great deal.

I salute your right to proclaim your view of what's good for Toronto but I'm relieved that yours is hardly a majority voice. In fact, I find it most pleasant to recall, from time to time, that we're on a specialist site given over to mulling about problems for which many fellow citizens have precious little regard or time.

 

[egotrippin]

These house don't give Toronto charm and character. They make downtown look like a suburb and prevent it from achieving higher density and vibrancy. These are nothing but sleepy streets occupied by households of 3-4. More importantly, it is not like Toronto has a shortage of houses or streets like them. In fact, the entire city is full of them, isn't it? To me, unless with exceptional value such as the Osgood Hall, 2 storey buildings belong to the suburbs, not downtown. They are a waste of space. Yes, history and blah blah but as I mentioned, we have this kind of houses everywhere outside downtown, don't we?

Yes, but for how much longer with that attitude? It's a slippery slope. As I mentioned, there's room for smart infill that is complementary to the existing built from. Take a development such as 850 Richmond St W. Three to four storey townhouse infill, the ground level can serve as retail space on commercial stretches. Additionally I know many people who live on some of those streets (D'Arcy in particular) and the density per house is higher than 3-4 people since a lot of them have been subdivided into apartments. In addition to destroying more perfectly serviceable and attractive 19th century houses, you'd price out a lot of students and lower income families that define the blocks surrounding Chinatown.

I don't like sterile and bland vertical communities like CityPlace. Not liking 2 story old houses doesn't mean I am a fan of green glass towers. I think replace them 4-12 storey apartment and other commercial buildings make more sense. I don't particularly dislike Victorian houses. I just don't like the fact they are 2 storeys and therefore waste too much land which should be occupied by more residents/businesses. King street East type of character is what is ideal. No crazy high rises glass boxed but no two storey houses wasting precious downtown land as well.

In most cases a vast majority of the houses are more than 2 storeys, but I agree with replacing the lowrise and more derelict structures along the major commercial streets; just not the residential neighbourhoods. Again, we obviously differ, but they are an extremely important part of the city's built form from historical, cultural and architectural standpoints. In a city with almost no geographic limitations, the future really lies in developing the underutilized land (parking lots, useless green space surrounding 1960s apartments, etc.) and intensifying the areas that bridge downtown with the inner suburbs.

 

[balenciaga]

I've heard Corktown referred to as a charming small Ontario town dropped into the middle of downtown Toronto, but only as a compliment.

Yes, if we have a few relatively quiet street downtown, that feels nice like an oasis, but I can only say we have so many of these occupying large land that it becomes wasteful. Of course it is nice to the owners to be able to live in low density area right in the middle of a large city, but if these were 5-6 storeys buildings, a lot more people would be able to enjoy its convenience on the same piece of land.

Whoever think "a charming small Ontario town" is a compliment should just move to a charming small Ontario town.

But fine, I hold on to my beliefs and you guys hold on to yours. No arguments from me on this any more since no one can change no one. It is me who is envisioning a truly European style of city with high density but no need for ugly green glass skyscrapers. You guys just talk as if you do but in the end, your hearts seem still belong to those typical North American two storey suburban houses with backyards and basements with a minivan in the driveway, I mean, if you can afford it. I on the other hand would never choose to live in a beautiful single family Victorian house even if I won $5 million tonight. And I guess that's our difference.

 

[adma]

But fine, I hold on to my beliefs and you guys hold on to yours. No arguments from me on this any more since no one can change no one. It is me who is envisioning a truly European style of city with high density but no need for ugly green glass skyscrapers.

Y'know, it's funny that you talk about "ugly green glass skyscrapers". Because judging from your embrace elsewhere of a fountains-and-statuary approach to our public-space sphere, you seem to be the sort to be happier if our "truly European style of city" were defined by this aesthetic

Which, really, doesn't make you nearly as "sophisticatedly European" as you think you are--though it might fit your obtuseness re streets like Huron. In fact, most truly sophisticated European urban minds (who'd have at least *some* regard for the genius loci) would regard your version of "sophistication" to me more like this

 

[SP!RE]

Whoever think "a charming small Ontario town" is a compliment should just move to a charming small Ontario town.

Okay, so you're talking not about reality but about some fantasy world where the city is designed around your needs only and everyone else "should just move".

In that case I'm not even going to bother debating with you anymore.

 

[adHominem]

Take another look at the first photo (Huron street), http://goo.gl/maps/u69PC
is it really what our downtown should look like? Do these houses on the street we see really give Toronto "charm" and "character"?? Maybe I am crazy today, but they just look horrible to me. People will say why Toronto looks like Nebraska, instead of "how charming" seeing them.

I used to live literally around the corner from there, on Baldwin Street. Whenever I brought friends in from out of town to visit, to a one, they always said "Oh, my God. This spot is amazing." It was like an oasis a stone's throw from the lunacy of Spadina and the big-city ceremonial avenue of University, and it was available to anyone just walking through, to take a break. I've never heard anyone compare it to Nebraska.

Also, you're underselling Nebraska.

Yes, Toronto is not European enough.

Perhaps not, but why does it have to be?

These houses don't give Toronto "character".

Yes, they do. The character is "Torontonian". Why does every city have to aspire to your singular ideal? Why does every neighbourhood have to have the same built form? Toronto has sleepy pockets and crazy built-up pockets and areas in-between. We have shiny new areas and hundred-year-old areas. They all work together, as parts of the same machine.

As to Asian cities, let's not worry about it. Toronto will never look like a big Asian city, not in 100 years.

Well, we can agree on that one, at least.

 

[Danielinthecity]

Suburban house or Victorian house?

You guys just talk as if you do but in the end, your hearts seem still belong to those typical North American two storey suburban houses with backyards and basements with a minivan in the driveway, I mean, if you can afford it. I on the other hand would never choose to live in a beautiful single family Victorian house even if I won $5 million tonight. And I guess that's our difference.

Are you linking a 'suburban' home with a Victorian home? Do you 'really' see these as the same? Just curious, b/c they are miles apart. I don't want to jump to conclusions, so I'm asking, but it seems like that's what you're saying in the above quote. Please clarify...thanks.

 

[balenciaga]

Are you linking a 'suburban' home with a Victorian home? Do you 'really' see these as the same? Just curious, b/c they are miles apart. I don't want to jump to conclusions, so I'm asking, but it seems like that's what you're saying in the above quote. Please clarify...thanks.

ok, to clarify, for me, 1-3 storey buildings = low density = suburban. Whether it is Victorian or whatever doesn't make a difference. Victorian home is just one style. Nothing special about it.
anything below 4 storeys (preferably 6) seldom make sense in downtown Toronto. Yes you have a quaint low density oasis in the middle of the city that everyone here seems to love, but my argument is that it is a vast waste of prime land. They are taking too much good space which could otherwise serve better purpose intead of the being the residence of a very small number of people.

 

[sixrings]

ok, to clarify, for me, 1-3 storey buildings = low density = suburban. Whether it is Victorian or whatever doesn't make a difference. Victorian home is just one style. Nothing special about it.
anything below 4 storeys (preferably 6) seldom make sense in downtown Toronto. Yes you have a quaint low density oasis in the middle of the city that everyone here seems to love, but my argument is that it is a vast waste of prime land. They are taking too much good space which could otherwise serve better purpose intead of the being the residence of a very small number of people.

Between Bathurst and parliament, and between front and DuPont I would not have a problem if the 1-3 stories were allowed to be torn down. There are plenty of Victorian houses that give Toronto Character which are not right in the CORE.

 

[balenciaga]

Between Bathurst and parliament, and between front and DuPont I would not have a problem if the 1-3 stories were allowed to be torn down. There are plenty of Victorian houses that give Toronto Character which are not right in the CORE.

Thank you thank you thank you. Finally someone who supports me. That's exactly what I have been saying.
I don't hate Victorian houses. I just don't think there should be so many of them smack in downtown. The same parcel of land that could be 6 storeys tall and offer residence for 120 people as well as plenty of retail business on the ground floor now only serve 2-8. We want our downtown to be vibrant, offer more space for people to live in it first. We don't need so many quiet oasis in the center.

Like you said, Toronto has so many 2 storey charming Victorian houses everywhere outside downtown. Aren't they enough to give the "character"?

 

[Ramako]

There are still a lot of opportunities to increase density in downtown Toronto without having to raze blocks of irreplaceable 100+ year old architecturally-significant lowrise buildings. This discussion isn't even worth having when so much of our existing mid-rise and high-rise downtown neighbourhoods are littered with empty or grossly underbuilt lots featuring entirely disposable architecture.

 

[Homer]

Okay, so you're talking not about reality but about some fantasy world where the city is designed around your needs only and everyone else "should just move".

In that case I'm not even going to bother debating with you anymore.

The reality is an economic one. When you have a city like Toronto where there is
a high demand for housing, unless you supply that demand for housing
costs will continue rise. We will be as costly as New York one day, by protecting
low density areas where people want to live (ie. downtown) you are ensuring that
we reach the costs of New York faster.

 

[ttk77]

The reality is an economic one. When you have a city like Toronto where there is
a high demand for housing, unless you supply that demand for housing
costs will continue rise. We will be as costly as New York one day, by protecting
low density areas where people want to live (ie. downtown) you are ensuring that
we reach the costs of New York faster.

Except that as has been said already, there is no demand to tear down these neighbourhoods since there is plenty of space downtown to build without having to destroy these areas. Even when all that space is used up it would make far more sense to tear down the post-war houses in the inner burbs to build mid-rises rather than tear down the Victorians. From what I've seen, the post-war neighbourhoods are much less dense than the Victorian neighbourhoods.