Toronto Union Park | 303.26m | 58s | Oxford Properties | Pelli Clarke Pelli

verticalvillage said:
So is this project officially another casualty of Toronto's big tradition of thinking small?
Click to expand...

Exactly so.
Hume had an article today saying Torontonians are so used to saying no as the default answer to any major change nowadays, to the extent that a 7 story condo on Ossington faces strong opposition.

This along with 1 Yonge and Mirvish towers are probably the best that could happen to Toronto for a very very long time, yet we are saying no to them one by one, or at least request reduction, just because we miss some warehouse (which is supposed to define Toronto's history), or may cast some shadow over a church or a park (sure, no buildings downtown cast shadows).

A Loblaws on college? No. - small retailers might not survive.
Porter expansion? No. - waterfront residents don't like noise/pollution.
Retail on Bathurst north of Queen? no. Buthurst is so beautiful and vibrant, why change? We need to maintain identity.

No wonder the FCP remains the unchallenged no 1 building for almost 40 years, because apparently, anything taller doesn't make any sense.
 
I'm more interested in the hotel aspect of this proposal. It had a really funky design. The office towers seem pretty hackneyed.
 
ksun said:
Exactly so.
Hume had an article today saying Torontonians are so used to saying no as the default answer to any major change nowadays, to the extent that a 7 story condo on Ossington faces strong opposition.

This along with 1 Yonge and Mirvish towers are probably the best that could happen to Toronto for a very very long time, yet we are saying no to them one by one, or at least request reduction, just because we miss some warehouse (which is supposed to define Toronto's history), or may cast some shadow over a church or a park (sure, no buildings downtown cast shadows).

A Loblaws on college? No. - small retailers might not survive.
Porter expansion? No. - waterfront residents don't like noise/pollution.
Retail on Bathurst north of Queen? no. Buthurst is so beautiful and vibrant, why change? We need to maintain identity.

No wonder the FCP remains the unchallenged no 1 building for almost 40 years, because apparently, anything taller doesn't make any sense.
Click to expand...

Who cares about height? In contrast to those who say 'no' to everything -- would you say 'yes' to anything that is really tall?
 
innsertnamehere said:
Nope, it is a casualty of Toronto thinking correctly.

And yes, this is essentially dead. Apparently Oxford still wants to redevelop the site, but is looking long term (10+ years). Don't expect to see anything for quite a while.
Click to expand...

Not dead, but merely a fact that redevelopment on this scale takes time.
 
One Nut Kruk said:
Who cares about height? In contrast to those who say 'no' to everything -- would you say 'yes' to anything that is really tall?
Click to expand...

The supertall crowd as well as those who's kneejerk reaction to every out-of-the-box development is to have the height cut down are cut from the same cloth.

We have brains. How about we use them to look at the height/density of each proposal objectively.
 
TheTigerMaster said:
Umm... isn't that kind of their job... to decide what is a correct path for the city to take?
Click to expand...

Not when it seems council's plan is to keep Toronto as a quaint little city with quaint little neighbourhoods and quaint.. things... There is a lack of ambition on council that is to blame for decades of under-investment and failure.
 
Filip said:
Not when it seems council's plan is to keep Toronto as a quaint little city with quaint little neighbourhoods and quaint.. things... There is a lack of ambition on council that is to blame for decades of under-investment and failure.
Click to expand...

Then maybe Toronto should stop electing under-ambitious councillors if that's what the city desires.
 
Filip said:
Not when it seems council's plan is to keep Toronto as a quaint little city with quaint little neighbourhoods and quaint.. things... There is a lack of ambition on council that is to blame for decades of under-investment and failure.
Click to expand...

Under investment and failure seems a bit harsh. How exactly have council caused under investment and failure? The casino? Not the type of investment a city that isn't in dire straights really needs with the negatives well outweighing the positives. (crime rates, usually increase in organized crime, job substitution instead of growth) If the land is valuable along Front Street (it is) Oxford will find a way to make something work that is profitable. (It's my pension fund, so I hope they do!)

Regardless, Councillors are elected by people in their riding. If they plan to be elected again, surely they will do what the people who voted them in would want them to do, or they would be replaced in the next election. All across North America, there has been under-investment and failure in the last decades, specifically with manufacturing investment and jobs leaving. I would say Toronto has weathered that storm fairly well actually as a city considering. If people on this board are so sure that council has had such a negative effect, shouldn't they get involved in the process more to make the change occur that they want to see, not just on UT? (Not specifically speaking about any individual but rather all of us as a whole. We should be more involved with our communities and should be able to converse and compromise about how we can make something better rather than say its simply a failure and write it off.)
 
Automation Gallery said:
Wouldn't a referendum be more correct, on an entertainment venue that would change the face of this city forever??
Click to expand...
No. It's not part of our system. You could make the same argument for the Island Airport, the City of Toronto Act, the Pan-Am Games, the Bloor-Danforth Scarborough extension, etc., etc.

We elect politicians to vote on our behalf.
 
Filip said:
Not when it seems council's plan is to keep Toronto as a quaint little city with quaint little neighbourhoods and quaint.. things... There is a lack of ambition on council that is to blame for decades of under-investment and failure.
Click to expand...

Huh? Considering the amount of development approved in the area, really? This is a private sector project - and if they can't make it work without a casino, it just meant that the time isn't ripe for it (and given the amount of commercial development in the pipeline that's quasi-spec, is that any surprise?). This is a long term play on the part of Oxford.

AoD
 
Last edited:
Yup. Expecting to be built immediately is like demanding Oxford to start building the Hudson Yards right now. Ain't going to happen. There isn't enough demand for office space in the city at this time, and there's lower hanging fruit available elsewhere in the city. The project will be started when the conditions are right.

Also saying that city council is responsible for the delay is about as honest as claiming that politicians create private sector jobs (discounting corruption, of course). The casino was only one part of the plan, and even that wouldn't have been started immediately.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top