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

[dt_toronto_geek]

Wow, you must live nearby....according to your posts, Yonge street is sacred, and nothing too tall should be built there

Regarding the 60 storey/198.5 meter proposal for 460 Yonge st.

No, I'm in no way affected by either of these two atrocities.
If these get approved, and they likely will with height reductions, where does it end? Are you OK with downtown Yonge going highrise everywhere as developers busily package up parcels of land demolishing the unique charactor of this street as they go? I've read hundreds of posts about how the Yonge subway is all ready running at or near capacity with no longer any relief lines in sight this decade. My real argument here however are that these buildings are way out of context for this section of the street.
Let's look at Sheppard Ave. and get some ridership on that subway line that we paid so much for, is underused and get to work on building 50's and 60's along there to boost ridership to support the massive investment in that infrastructure. What would be the argument against that? Why not start planning 50's & 60's for Eglinton Ave. while property is still reasonable before the subway goes through there?

 

[marsh]

I agree with last post. Sustainability is more than density. Highrise development is not sustainable if it is not supported by the community, if its not supported by expansion of infrastructure and services (like the subway - which is currently at overcapcity on Yonge); its not sustainable if we don't offer a variety of homes to address different family needs and lifestyles (there are too many small bachelor/ 1 bedroom units in the Yonge corridor - I have no reason to believe this project will be any different); its not sustainable if we don't support local small businesses (my concern is that a lot of the small businesses will be shut down or adversvely impacted by construction and will not be able to afford the post-development rents); its not sustainable if we don't take into consequences the impact of tall buildings on what little green space we have in the downtown corridor.

 

[alklay]

I agree. Yonge Street is doomed if it gets nothing but highrise condos.

I was walking around Freedville with an out of town friend the other week. He appreciated the low/mid-rise nature of the neighbourhood because, as he stated, it "lets you breath."

Yonge Street would be well served by 5-10 story buildings, not overbearing monsters like this proposal.

 

[canmark]

Sounds like there are many more towers in this neighborhood to come. According to a quote of Kristyn Wong-Tam in Xtra: "There will probably be eight more towers along the spine of Yonge St from College to Bloor."

My cousin's wife owns two hair salons very near this location. I don't know what her opinion is, but I would think it would be good for her, as more people living in the neighborhood mean more potential customers. She used to live near Tokyo, so a high density of high rises would likely not scare her.

 

[agoraflaneur]

There are two lines of opposition here in my opinion. The first is that the proposal is out of scale for the neighbourhood. The second is that the heritage is not being respected. I tend to disagree with the first yet agree with the second.

My solution would be to insist on 5ive type developments for the entire street. This would preserve the heritage as well as the interesting feel of Yonge street, with its three storey brick buildings while increasing density and - crucially - adding vibrancy to this often seedy strip. The site of this proposal should, therefore, feature setbacks with a consistent retail streetscape while still adding slim point towers. They just need to be better designs.

I disagree with those who believe the scale is wrong because this is downtown. Aura, just down the street, will be 75 storeys and 1 Bloor E, just up the street, will be 70. 58 stories is a nice in between. Perhaps a few storey shorter, but really what is the difference? Someone with a cogent argument for the undesireability of tall buildings could convince me to chop of a few more storeys, but not that many I think. Yonge downtown should be a street with the tallest structures allowed; in fact anywhere close to the subway downtown, within limits, is where the tallest structures should be allowed. Tall buildings are already everywhere in the surrounding areas.

The argument that the Yonge line is at capacity is useless:building anywhere will add to its use - especially on Sheppard, which feeds into it. A DRL will be the only real long term solution, but the TTC says that its new signaling system will increase capacity by 50%, in addition to which they will renovate the Yonge Bloor station, which can't be done fast enough.

 

[dt_toronto_geek]

There are two lines of opposition here in my opinion. The first is that the proposal is out of scale for the neighbourhood. The second is that the heritage is not being respected. I tend to disagree with the first yet agree with the second.

There are no heritage losses for this project nor 460 Yonge. My arguments against these two projects are the insane height, the podium for 501, the loss of the low-rise charactor on Yonge along this stretch and the crap retail that will follow once these buildings are completed. Will Sizzlers, Hoops, Pasta Perfection and other retail currently in place return in four or five years? No. Will the RBC branch? Betcha' they will with an even larger more modern branch, again, see Bay Street for so many fine examples of this.

My solution would be to insist on 5ive type developments for the entire street. This would preserve the heritage as well as the interesting feel of Yonge street, with its three storey brick buildings while increasing density and - crucially - adding vibrancy to this often seedy strip. The site of this proposal should, therefore, feature setbacks with a consistent retail streetscape while still adding slim point towers. They just need to be better designs.

Couldn't agree more, where appropriate.

I disagree with those who believe the scale is wrong because this is downtown. Aura, just down the street, will be 75 storeys and 1 Bloor E, just up the street, will be 70. 58 stories is a nice in between. Perhaps a few storey shorter, but really what is the difference? Someone with a cogent argument for the undesireability of tall buildings could convince me to chop of a few more storeys, but not that many I think. Yonge downtown should be a street with the tallest structures allowed; in fact anywhere close to the subway downtown, within limits, is where the tallest structures should be allowed. Tall buildings are already everywhere in the surrounding areas.

So throw up insanely tall buildings willy-nilly everywhere without regard to planning protocols, any thought to surrounding neighbourhoods or the built form that currently exists? Can't agree there.

 

[urbandreamer]

I walked by this strip today. Some impressions:

1)Plenty of 7s+ "podiums" exist along this stretch, including the property just to the south. Doesn't overwhelm the street imo, esp knowing that aA podiums kick ass! The Scientology building just up the street for example is very Clewesian yet doesn't ruin the feel of the Victorians just north of it. Just east of this very site are apartment buildings which make very little effort to meet the street appropriately. (1960s planning sucked, eh?)

2)There are plenty of appalling non-historic lowrise buildings in the area that will come down, and in fact are probably owned by developers today.

3)The ma and pa shops along this site are absolute rubbish, easily found in close proximity to the area--either on Church, Jarvis, Wellesley, further up Yonge, the Eaton Centre etc. Let's see I passed by a crappy pizza joint, a mexican restaurant that never looks busy, a nasty money mart styled robber, a pretty generic Asian fusion restaurant, a shop selling cheap made-in-china garbage and nothing memorable at all. Short term, the mix of retail may change, but long term, as the condos mature, expect changes, probably independent shops to make a come back.

4)Height. Not once walking by any buildings did I consider height of any of them. Granted, it was dark, but I was focused on people watching... Walking around the DD for example, do I think of the scary height of those condo towers? No. The only areas where height looks silly is where the area is overwhelmingly lowrise and/or the building fails to meet the street properly--think Bay St parking garage entrances, tower in the parks etc. Not gonna happen here!

I believe this area can handle another 100,000 ppl easily, but in reality it won't be more than 10,000.

 

[AlphaTO]

I walked by this strip today. Some impressions:

1)Plenty of 7s+ "podiums" exist along this stretch, including the property just to the south. Doesn't overwhelm the street imo, esp knowing that aA podiums kick ass! The Scientology building just up the street for example is very Clewesian yet doesn't ruin the feel of the Victorians just north of it. Just east of this very site are apartment buildings which make very little effort to meet the street appropriately. (1960s planning sucked, eh?)

Are you sure you were walking along the stretch of Yonge at issue? What 7s podiums are you thinking of? As for the buildings to the east of the site, they are all well-integrated into the neighbourhood with appropriate setbacks and excellent greenspaces.

3)The ma and pa shops along this site are absolute rubbish, easily found in close proximity to the area--either on Church, Jarvis, Wellesley, further up Yonge, the Eaton Centre etc. Let's see I passed by a crappy pizza joint, a mexican restaurant that never looks busy, a nasty money mart styled robber, a pretty generic Asian fusion restaurant, a shop selling cheap made-in-china garbage and nothing memorable at all. Short term, the mix of retail may change, but long term, as the condos mature, expect changes, probably independent shops to make a come back.

Perhaps Yonge can follow Bay Street with its endless stream of drycleaners? You are eseentially proposing a Bay Street plan for Yonge Street. Next time you're in the city, walk up Bay Street and share with us the warm and fuzzy feelings that that stretch inspire.

 

[jje1000]

I walked by this strip today. Some impressions:

1)Plenty of 7s+ "podiums" exist along this stretch, including the property just to the south. Doesn't overwhelm the street imo, esp knowing that aA podiums kick ass! The Scientology building just up the street for example is very Clewesian yet doesn't ruin the feel of the Victorians just north of it. Just east of this very site are apartment buildings which make very little effort to meet the street appropriately. (1960s planning sucked, eh?)

http://maps.google.ca/maps?q=501+Yo..._qETa0zSE1CZHtLog&cbp=12,161.95,,0,-0.12&z=19

The buildings behind are not relevant- the main concern is the Yonge Street frontage. We're talking a podium almost as tall as the Courtyard Mariott seen in the distance, plus two 58 floor towers right on top of that podium (not behind or to the sides). It's completely out of scale.

Perhaps Yonge can follow Bay Street with its endless stream of drycleaners? You are eseentially proposing a Bay Street plan for Yonge Street. Next time you're in the city, walk up Bay Street and share with us the warm and fuzzy feelings that that stretch inspire.

Thank you.

 

[Register123]

Pretty sure the 58 stories includes the podium ^..... so 7 story podium with two 51 story buildings on top. Instead of parking make it 7 stories of retail and office space.

 

[agoraflaneur]

So throw up insanely tall buildings willy-nilly everywhere without regard to planning protocols, any thought to surrounding neighbourhoods or the built form that currently exists? Can't agree there.

I'm not sure I follow you. First, what is willy-nilly? Do these buildings contravene the planning policies (genuine question)? It seems to me that next to our busiest subway, tall buildings are allowed - is this incorrect?

Second, I stated that I am open to cogent arguments against tall buildings here - but what are they? Why do tall buildings not respect the neighbourhood? My experience living at Sherbourne and Carlton when I first moved to Toronto was that, yes, there are cute little houses dotted in the area that add significantly to its desireability, but the dominant built form is taller towers - though, to be sure, the range is more 20 to 30 storeys right now. Are there shadowing issues? You just don't think a tall building is nice? Blocked views? Seriously, Charles street is budding with 40s + proposals, and Casa is really nice - it doesn't destroy anything in my opinion. Please, tell me why you believe they do. Are 30s towers more appropriate?

I agree mostly with what UD said, except that I don't see many 7s podiums on Yonge. I think the 3-4s that is the dominant form would be ideal to preserve. There are indeed many squat modern buildings that have little redeeming value, and I hope that they are all developed eventually to meet the street better while allowing for small retail.

UD's point against those who suggest that the businesses are worth saving is apt: these can relocate elsewhere if the demand exists, but otherwise they are not adding a lot to the culture of Toronto. I don't think that Yonge will become Bay street simply because things are redeveloped. The strip under question here is absolutely terrible almost anything will be better. Retail frontage must be insisted upon by the city, though.

 

[SP!RE]

When I was walking past it the other day, it reinforced for me that with a wide enough sidewalk, podium heights are not a big issue. The Courtyard Marriott just south of this site in question consists of two slabs without and massing or setback, but because of the wide sidewalk, you hardly even notice.

I do think 7 floors is too much, but I don't think the towers will spell the end of the world. Good materials on the podium and broken-up frontages will be key so that it's not just an expanse of uninterrupted glass, which would kill the feeling on the sidewalk. But yeah-- wide sidewalk = a world of difference for tall buildings.

 

[AlphaTO]

Are there shadowing issues?

In a word, Yes. The shadow studies as presented in the community meeting projected significant shadowing going north along Yonge. If the proposed building is removed from the shadow study the amount of sunshine along Yonge Street in the afternoon is wonderful.

I don't think that Yonge will become Bay street simply because things are redeveloped.

What is your basis for making this assertion? It seems to be counterintuitive. If you impose a Bay Street plan with a corrdidor of tall towers along Yonge, isn't it reasonable to expect the same result of a deadening of the street?

 

[AlphaTO]

But yeah-- wide sidewalk = a world of difference for tall buildings.

I definitely agree. Wide sidewalks are essential for a lively and engaging street level experience. The question is, does Lanterra have sufficient room to accomplish this? I suspect that the project as proposed cannot allow for this. I walked by today and it really isn't that large of an area.

 

[SP!RE]

Yeah I was never clear on what the current width is vs. the proposed width. It will HAVE to be wider. I think it should be increased to match the Courtyard by Marriott sidewalk width to the south.