Toronto TeaHouse 501 Yonge Condominiums | 170.98m | 52s | Lanterra | a—A

CanadianNational said:
I also worry that setting a new precedent for scale on Yonge that so hugely exceeds what is historically there will lead to the demolition of historic properties, or their reduction in importance - leading to their neglect. I think better infill and top-notch renovations on Yonge that are in keeping with it's peculiarly low scale will ultimately treat it better than aiming for a future alley of high-rises.

I think these buildings could be half the height here, tops, and still be plenty impressive.
Click to expand...

If anything I think the introduction of so many young professionals to the neighbourhood would cause the adjacent commercial properties to become even more valuable. All these new customers would only serve to increase sales for local commercial properties. Owners of those buildings would have an incentive to raise their leases and refurbish their properties. You'd have higher end cafes, restaurants and boutiques pushing out some of the shady porn shops, dollar stores and money marts.That's the future of Yonge Street I foresee.

And really, to the random pedestrian walking down the street, does the difference between 29 storeys and 58 storeys really impact their experience in any way? People don't actually crank their heads up that high (as evidenced by how oblivious everyone on Yonge Street was to the skywriting last week). If you're going to go tall, you might as well go really tall. I'm far more concerned with how the podium will relate to the street, and the size of the store fronts.
 
Good points guys.

I think that my worry is not that adjacent properties might become more valuable - I think that might be a really good thing to improve the aesthetics and desirability of the street. It would be great if Yonge became more of a lovely destination, instead of such a pinched and run-down corridor.

I worry though, that as available scale and finances conspire, that developers will end up busting entire blocks of low-rise properties at once, drastically altering the character of Yonge Street without necessarily highly improving it.

The issue of architectural quality, as you pointed out, is important. How the buidling meets the street, how well handled it is, the materials used and such. I don't think we want what's happened to upper Bay Street to happen on Yonge though - the problems it has with a sense of sterility, and awkward street life. Standard modern-scale architecture often feels a bit dull. Keeping a lot of Yonge's fine, historic and irregular scale could help prevent that.
But that would require real sensitivity to site, and rare developers who could sustain an almost unprecedented level of civic goodwill over a long period.

As for the height issue, actually, your point is good. If you're up to thirty floors, do twenty more make a difference if it's well handled? I'll have to think about it. Toronto's a city that has very little harmony in its built form, from one block to the next. Maybe it would work better in some places than others.
 
Last edited:
CanadianNational said:
Good points guys.

I think that my worry is not that adjacent properties might become more valuable - I think that might be a really good thing to improve the aesthetics and desirability of the street. It would be great if Yonge became more of a lovely destination, instead of such a pinched and run-down corridor.

I worry though, that as available scale and finances conspire, that developers will end up busting entire blocks of low-rise properties at once, drastically altering the character of Yonge Street without necessarily highly improving it.

The issue of architectural quality, as you pointed out, is important. How the buidling meets the street, how well handled it is, the materials used and such. I don't think we want what's happened to upper Bay Street to happen on Yonge though - the problems it has with a sense of sterility, and awkward street life. Standard modern-scale architecture often feels a bit dull. Keeping a lot of Yonge's fine, historic and irregular scale could help prevent that.
But that would require real sensitivity to site, and rare developers who could sustain an almost unprecedented level of civic goodwill over a long period.

As for the height issue, actually, your point is good. If you're up to thirty floors, do twenty more make a difference if it's well handled? I'll have to think about it. Toronto's a city that has very little harmony in its built form, from one block to the next. Maybe it would work better in some places than others.
Click to expand...

I have no doubt that those historical rows of Vics cannot be replaced in any architectural or cultural sense. They serve as the true heart and soul of Yonge. This might just be the idealist in me, but my hope is that the historical gravitas and commercial viability of those old rows of Vics would be incentive enough for the planners to step in to ensure minimal intrusion from developers. Despite their fatigued progression toward the mundane, developers of this boom have actually done a decent job of avoiding the desolate, block-busting, soul-crushing projects that we came to expect in decades past. I don't know if that's the city keeping a tight leash on them or if they've learned not to piss in their own backyards, but I have faith that the larger industry has acknowledged that the Vics on Yonge are 'sacred ground.' I expect any future projects that concern those rows will follow the model set by FIVE Condos or Nicholas Residences - accountable on a local level. If we can't trust our planners to at least do that, then Yonge is ultimately a lost cause anyway.

With respect to what goes up on 501 Yonge itself, I have no objection to another peak in the skyline.
 
The city requires builders in some cases to save historically significant buildings by incorporating the existing structure into the new. In some cases we end up with a brick wall and a door, and a 30 or 40 story glass and steel structure that looks a bit ridiculous.What's the point.
If you are going to save the building, as in a lot of cases they should, then save the whole structure, an not just a few bricks. I'm sure there are a few cases where some thought has been put into the process, but there are many more that have been a haphazard, out of place,
silly looking disaster.
 
Re comment concerning The St Joseph street Condos and St Nicholas Street condos setting precendents for development for the Victorians, I can't speak for St Joseph but the only reason we ended up with the development on St Nicholas Street is because the neighbourhood launched and all out campaign against the original design proposal. If it weren't for that I'm not sure what we would have ended up with but I think it would have been much worse. I'm not happy with what is going up now, but its a big improvement over what was initially proposed. So don't necessarily trust developers or rely on councillors or city planners to look after the community's interests. Some developers are more thoughtful than others. And I don't mean to be critical of city planners but my impression is that they are overworked and understaffed. Our prior city councillor was very pro-developer, I hope our current city councillor reflects a more balanced approach.

Personally I don't want to see highrises on Yonge Street. I find Bay street drab and impersonal because of all th condo and offie towers. There is alot we could do to improve Yonge but building highrises isn't of them.

And everyone thinks development will bring more business but one of my concersn with the St Joseph development is that the existing tennants won't come back because they won't be able to afford the post new development rents. Whether someone else can - who knows?I think its tought being a small independent business. But we are playing with people's livilihoods.
 
Wow. I wonder how 2 x 58 stories will impact property values at 25 Maitland (The Cosmopolitan condos), especially the west exposure ones ? The units at The Cosmo are already somewhat depressed in comparison to the rest of downtown Toronto.
 
It never quite hit me how tall these things are - they'll be somewhere around 200m. But lets not all be scared by that. Remember that when you're within a block of a tower it doesn't make much of a difference whether its a 30, 50 or 100 story tower. The real 'impact' it will have on Yonge is dictated by the podium. The reason why Bay is called bleak and whatever is because it is nothing but poorly designed podiums and towers with cheap materials. Furthermore, there is very little variety architecturally. The problem isnt that designers didnt create strikingly different designs - because they are all different in some way - but its that they are all from the same time period. And that my friends is what creates a bleak neighborhood. Cheap + from the same time.

Now about this Yonge street thing. Yonge doesnt suffer like Bay does. It has buildings from every era of Torontos existence (sort of) so this proposal will just be another addition to that. Neo-modernism goes VERY well with older buildings. So I say dont worry about Yonge turning into Bay because it wont. And dont worry about a wall of skyscrapers killing the street because it hasn't. Yonge from Front to Queen is all highrises - and its beautiful. Bring it on Lanterra! (dont screw up...)
 
WanderLust said:
Wow. I wonder how 2 x 58 stories will impact property values at 25 Maitland (The Cosmopolitan condos), especially the west exposure ones ? The units at The Cosmo are already somewhat depressed in comparison to the rest of downtown Toronto.
Click to expand...


i think the building's high maintenance fees may have more to do with the depressed values.
IIRC they are around $0.70 psf
 
A lot of the older buildings on the east side have somewhat depressed values, but the impact of the new developments has (without any exception that I'm aware of) been to increase neighbouring values.
 
I'm trying to visualize what 2 x 58s on that block would look like ... and it might really overwhelm the street and neighbourhood, especially considering the other tall buildings being proposed in the general vicinity. Yuck.
2x58s.jpg
 

Attachments

  • 2x58s.jpg
    2x58s.jpg
    77.1 KB · Views: 609
cdr108 said:
i'm thinking low 40s would be more appropriate and sufficient
Click to expand...

I still can't understand how the difference between 40 storeys and 58 storeys is actually supposed to make a perceptible difference at street level. 40 storeys will still massively overwhelm the neighbourhood. An extra 18 beyond that becomes marginal. I'd understand if you were staking your claim at 4 to 12 storeys, but if you're fine and dandy with 40 storeys on Yonge, then is an extra 18 really the thing that's going to make all the difference? To the random person walking down Yonge Street, it won't make a difference. Going 40 storeys (as opposed to 60 storeys or 4 storeys) is a compromise that satisfies neither side of the argument.
 
Latest I've heard is that prospective tenants are being offered 3 years with guarantees, but after that they might have to leave for demolition.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top