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

[interchange42]

It's really the hotel tower that makes me angry. If it doesn't violate minimum tower spacing, wouldn't it violate maximum floorplate?

Exceed the maximum floorplate in the conjoined section?

42

Yes.

There's a larger maximum floorplate for commercial buildings, but I have to admit that I don't remember what it is. Too tired to look it up! To the east of this conjoined tower would be the fully new office "Tower 5" of the project, which is pretty much just as wide, north-south.

42

 

[Automation Gallery]

I'd be surprised if it proceeded without some major revisions.

Hopefully no chopping here

 

[DarkSideDenizen]

Wasn't there some space next door (LCBO lands) designated for a park?

 

[mrxbombastic]

The strip along Yonge could use an intimate plaza/park space aside from the block park just south of qq. Something ala Paley Park in NYC hopefully that central plaza corridor running down the plan provides that intimacy. And for the love of all things urban include some actually seating. Don't make this a Four Seasons repeat (lovely space just needs maybe two benches is all).
On the north block I think we actually might see one of the condo towers go such that we get the commerce tower repositioned in the north central space (facing the plaza corridor) flanked on both southern corners of the north block by maybe slightly taller condos. Adds some more prominence and spatial structure to the north block towers I think.

 

[DarkSideDenizen]

ok DarkSideDenizen your light sarcasm isn't necessary. Ushahid is very young guy, like adma, but much more engaging..

Ushahid, the density of this proposal is without precident, I'd be surprised if it proceeded without some major revisions .

?? Are you on patrol here or something? My questions were fair and polite and to the point. I don't know, nor do I care, how old other members are or how many posts they've made if that's your issue. Everyone has the right to an opinion, best one that is well supported. Also Buildup; I am quite capable of forming my own responses, as I'm sure Ushahid is as well. Respectfully, please do not interject again.

 

[44 North]

Just make the site into some midrises and some highrises, with a gradual scale-down in height towards the east. These buildings are too large, and what's proposed is much too extreme.

 

[diminutive]

Just make the site into some midrises and some highrises, with a gradual scale-down in height towards the east. These buildings are too large, and what's proposed is much too extreme.

Sooo extreme!!!!!!!! Everywhere should look like the Annex!!!! Much too much too extreme! Midrise!

 

[urbandreamer]

Toronto needs more extremes! I say build it and to hell with the polite space issues. Just get the street level right and use the finest architecture Canada is capable of. Get some brick down here for sure

 

[TDotTeen]

My biggest worry about this project is at the street level. Any single project that spans a whole block will lead to a boring streetscape. That's the problem with the whole southcore - there's no diversity in the urban fabric - and it doesn't seem like anyone is going to try to change that.

I think the towers themselves look great, and I love the density, but I'd have preferred if the blocks were divided up among developers so we could get some more diversity.

 

[67Cup]

The one thing that is simply no longer acceptable for urban development is that practice which has been the norm for decades. That is the virtually unfettered expansion of the city into the irreplaceable farmland of Southern Ontario, with the consequence of long commutes, formerly facilitated by the waste of cheap energy.

This means densification. This is not an option.

There are two options for densification and to my mind they are not mutually exclusive. One is the "Europeanization" of major streets and avenues. I grew up in Leaside and lived much of my adult life in Guildwood. As a consequence I know Eglinton East quite well. There is room for, indeed in my opinion there is a crying need for, better use of the land along that corridor. That is merely one example.

The other option is to go vertical in certain designated areas. I can think of no more obvious location in the entire GTA for increased verticality than the foot of Yonge St.

If there are transit and other infrastructure challenges to this, and I agree with North44 that there are, the proper response is not to prevent densification, which, I repeat, is a necessity. It is to address the transit and infrastructure problems.

I do not pretend that what I have written here is anything but obvious. But sometimes the obvious needs to be restated.

 

[RiverCity1]

I can think of no more obvious location in the entire GTA for increased verticality than the foot of Yonge St.

Well said! I can think of a few older, but recent (within last 8 years), developments that should have been planned with higher densities. We need to look to the future and not limit the potential here.

 

[DarkSideDenizen]

Well, It will certainly look amazing flying into Toronto Billy Bishop once this and the many other large projects are completed (as will the drive in on the Gardner westbound).

 

[44 North]

It seems everyone is gladhanding these ultra-tall condos with the argument that 'we need to look to the future'. I don't know what kind of future we're talking about here, but TO's population growth is something that's known in advance and accounted for. Toronto is very large, and we have vast areas of the city ripe for development (Eglinton East/West, Sheppard East/West, Lawrence East/West, Finch East/West, numerous infill opportunities, East York, Scarboro, York, Etobicoke, 1,000 acres of ultra-prime waterfront, two suburban subway corridors coming online within the decade...)

With the amount of ultra-tall condos in the core and its periphery that people are wishing for, the majority of them will obviously sit empty. Yes there's a demand for shoebox units in the core, but there's also an enormous demand for townhomes and sizable/affordable units well outside the core. We can only absorb so much, and wishing for a Hong Kong level of ultra-rise condos is just that...wishing. The official act, market conditions, infrastructure conditions, unforeseen economic conditions... all say we're never going to be Manhattan. The congested ultra-tall utopia is a fantasy. The laneways of Kensignton, the detached Victorian and Edwardian homes of Cabbagetown, the garages of Little Italy, the mansions of The Annex...they'll be with us for the long haul.

 

[RiverCity1]

I agree with a lot of what you have to say, 44 North, but I'm personally not wishing for a Hong Kong level of ultra-rise condos throughout downtown...just this little pocket at the foot of Yonge. I don't see how the market won't be able to handle it over the next 10 or more years and I think that it's really warranted here.

I do think that as SFD homes become increasingly out of reach for a lot of people, that townhomes will become the Canadian dream, at least for those living in TO looking for ground-oriented housing. As you say, there are lots of areas ripe for (re)development. We love building things here, then tearing them down, and then building anew.

 

[interchange42]

It seems everyone is gladhanding these ultra-tall condos with the argument that 'we need to look to the future'.

Introduction: Yes, lots of people are.

I don't know what kind of future we're talking about here, but TO's population growth is something that's known in advance and accounted for.

Well, that's a very centrally-planned way to look at it. Yes, there are official plans that help direct growth. No, it's not "all accounted for" in regards to their being any one agency doling out housing permits in meet some sort of quota.

Toronto is very large, and we have vast areas of the city ripe for development (Eglinton East/West, Sheppard East/West, Lawrence East/West, Finch East/West, numerous infill opportunities, East York, Scarboro, York, Etobicoke, 1,000 acres of ultra-prime waterfront, two suburban subway corridors coming online within the decade...)

Market forces will mean that new housing will sell in all these areas, each according to the demand. "1,000 acres of ultra-prime waterfront"—Well, what exactly do you mean by that? There certainly are not thousands of acres of ultra-prime waterfront lots waiting to go. Over a period of several decades more and more of the waterfront will be redeveloped.

With the amount of ultra-tall condos in the core and its periphery that people are wishing for, the majority of them will obviously sit empty.

Exactly backwards. The buildings don't go up until they're 70 to 80% sold.

Yes there's a demand for shoebox units in the core, but there's also an enormous demand for townhomes and sizable/affordable units well outside the core. We can only absorb so much, and wishing for a Hong Kong level of ultra-rise condos is just that...wishing.

Sales will determine how much gets built at what speed where. If demand drops so much that the tall condos you don't like don't sell enough to start, well, then that's that. If they do sell, then another one will come onto the market.

The official act, market conditions, infrastructure conditions, unforeseen economic conditions... all say we're never going to be Manhattan. The congested ultra-tall utopia is a fantasy.

The climax? That line is just you making up a bunch 'a stuff. It's absolutely meaningless, which pretty much encapsulates your whole argument, so, well placed.

The laneways of Kensignton, the detached Victorian and Edwardian homes of Cabbagetown, the garages of Little Italy, the mansions of The Annex...they'll be with us for the long haul.

As a denouement, that's lovely and poetic, but it misses out the fact that an increasingly higher percentage of Torontonians live in high rise, a percentage which will continue to increase. We'll see an increase in mid-rise too. There are places for each, and we have to get the development of all of it right.

42