Toronto Ten York Street Condos | 224.02m | 65s | Tridel | Wallman Architects

This is the YQNA (York Quay Neighbourhood Association). I must say, they are a very lively looking bunch.

pam_yqna.jpg
 
No different than any other NIMBY Group - now that they have their little spot down on the Lake shore they want to keep it to themselves.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Not to say I agree with their stance in this case, but how is asking for a shorter/less dense project equate to keeping "it" to themselves?

AoD
 
Last edited:
insertrealnamehere:

Less isn't the same thing as not having to share - and the term NIMBYism is thrown around so much it's getting to the point of being meaningless. Some of the criticisms might be genuine, others not so - but to label all of it invalid isn't doing anyone a service.

AoD
 
Last edited:
Wider streets with more lanes than the "old" core, literally beside an expressway, and less than a block from the busiest transportation hub in the country with local, regional and long haul train service. On the face of it, I'm finding it hard to feel too sympathetic.
 
Hence - "Not to say I agree with their stance in this case". That said, given said high value for the site, I would argue it should be reserved for higher value uses than condos instead. One thing I will agree with the group on though - the lack of comprehensive vision of that stretch of the waterfront from York to Jarvis.

AoD
 
Agree (somewhat) on both counts. I'd love to see even more of these plots as office but we are getting quite a few mid-level office buildings in the area, and with the shift towards people wanting to live downtown the condos have to go somewhere.

I think we have a fairly good vision for the immediate water front thanks to the work of WT, but I think getting there down York, Bay or Yonge as a pedestrian is awful (in large part thanks to the tracks and Gardiner which we can only do so much about). I agree these buildings wont do much to improve it unless the retail space is well planned. York does have potential though as Ice, Ten York and Harbour Plaza will all have (planned) retail facing it. Hope they execute well as it'll become the main route from Union to Harbour Centre. When all finished they can't be worse than walking past Waterpark Place I & II and Harbour Castle Conference Centre. Oh and can't forget we'll eventually be rid of the York Street ramp.

Improving east of Yonge will be tough with Redpath, not sure what could be done about that.
 
When are they removing the York St. ramp? Is that part of the Gardiner tear down speculation? or are they just relocating it one block west to Lower Simcoe?
 
yes, NIMBYS sometimes have good points, but as there is already considerably amounts of office buildings being built in this area, with both lakeshore and the gardiner directly north, a streetcar line directly south, and union station a block north, if there is anywhere to build tall in the city this is it. this group here seems like a true group of NIMBYs as they are protesting a structure that seems perfectly suited (at least density wise, which is the part they are protesting) for the location.

also, the article seems to make it seem like they want NO buildings approved without a plan for the waterfront, I.E. leave them as parking lots. this seems like a perfect case of NOT IN MY BACKYARD if you ask me. they claim that it will limit waterfront vibrancy, despite it adding thousands of residents to enjoy it, as well as getting rid of ugly parking lots.
 
Last edited:
000 said:
When are they removing the York St. ramp? Is that part of the Gardiner tear down speculation? or are they just relocating it one block west to Lower Simcoe?
Click to expand...

Yes sorry, realignment would have been a better word to use. All the information here. It's moving along but no set date for when it will happen.
 
This is really no different than people who buy a house near the airport then complain about the noise and try to stop the airport from expanding. Anybody who bought a condo in this area had to know that there would be more condos and more development. There isn't a better area in the city for high-density development than an area next to union station and the gardener expressway and miles away from any single-family residential developments.

Their argument about less development makes the assumption that the city doesn't have the sense to plan for sufficient fire and ambulance service for the additional residential and I think that position is unreasonable and is simply a ploy to try to limit additional development in an area they would like to keep to themselves.
 
and miles away from any single-family residential developments.
Click to expand...

What's so sarcosanct about single-family residential developments? The residents of said group tend to be the MOST vehement of all when it comes to protesting against neighbourhood changes. Like I have said, expecting no development and intensification is one thing, asking for a coherent plan for the area - especially for projects that are asking for what's allowed under the zoning bylaws is another. Do not confound valid rationale with suspect ones.

I think we have a fairly good vision for the immediate water front thanks to the work of WT, but I think getting there down York, Bay or Yonge as a pedestrian is awful (in large part thanks to the tracks and Gardiner which we can only do so much about). I agree these buildings wont do much to improve it unless the retail space is well planned. York does have potential though as Ice, Ten York and Harbour Plaza will all have (planned) retail facing it. Hope they execute well as it'll become the main route from Union to Harbour Centre. When all finished they can't be worse than walking past Waterpark Place I & II and Harbour Castle Conference Centre. Oh and can't forget we'll eventually be rid of the York Street ramp.
Click to expand...

The stretch between York and Jarvis - and the current disaster that it is - is precisely the reason why some sort of coherent vision under the aegis of WT is necessary. Sinking all the money into QQ wouldn't help you if the situation is made worse by potential disasters to be (given the number of development sites). Not saying this project will be one - but that's exactly why it requires close scrutiny.

AoD
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top