Toronto Westside Mall Redevelopment | ?m | 60s | SmartCentres | Turner Fleischer

I don't understand why this project is so bland. It's on the doorstep of two future rapid transit lines. Why not build a nice "village"-type development of attractive towers with retail along a landscaped street like Galleria on the Park? That project doesn't even have rapid transit access and looks much better designed.

There should be direct connections to the LRT and GO platforms, with fine-grained retail along Eglinton Avenue West, patios, and lush landscaping. There should also be at least a small office component with easy regional access via Line 5 and all-day service on the Barrie line. Perhaps there's an opportunity for a cultural/institutional component too given the excellent future transit access?

The first tower should be better than this one to set the tone for the whole project. Hopefully, it's just a study. They should invest more in this project because the area has so much potential to be great.
 
junctionist said:
I don't understand why this project is so bland. It's on the doorstep of two future rapid transit lines. Why not build a nice "village"-type development of attractive towers with retail along a landscaped street like Galleria on the Park? That project doesn't even have rapid transit access and looks much better designed.

There should be direct connections to the LRT and GO platforms, with fine-grained retail along Eglinton Avenue West, patios, and lush landscaping. There should also be at least a small office component with easy regional access via Line 5 and all-day service on the Barrie line. Perhaps there's an opportunity for a cultural/institutional component too given the excellent future transit access?

The first tower should be better than this one to set the tone for the whole project. Hopefully, it's just a study. They should invest more in this project because the area has so much potential to be great.
Click to expand...
These are great ideas! All of this would've happened if they even tried to conform to the Golden Mile Secondary Plan. Unfortunately, the plan is under appeal (not in-force), so we might see a lot of bland development in this area until the appeal is resolved.
 
daniel_kryz said:
These are great ideas! All of this would've happened if they even tried to conform to the Golden Mile Secondary Plan. Unfortunately, the plan is under appeal (not in-force), so we might see a lot of bland development in this area until the appeal is resolved.
Click to expand...

This project isn't in the Golden Mile area. It's in the west end near Eglinton and Caledonia.
 
junctionist said:
I don't understand why this project is so bland. It's on the doorstep of two future rapid transit lines. Why not build a nice "village"-type development of attractive towers with retail along a landscaped street like Galleria on the Park? That project doesn't even have rapid transit access and looks much better designed.

There should be direct connections to the LRT and GO platforms, with fine-grained retail along Eglinton Avenue West, patios, and lush landscaping. There should also be at least a small office component with easy regional access via Line 5 and all-day service on the Barrie line. Perhaps there's an opportunity for a cultural/institutional component too given the excellent future transit access?

The first tower should be better than this one to set the tone for the whole project. Hopefully, it's just a study. They should invest more in this project because the area has so much potential to be great.
Click to expand...
I mean...
ProjectEnd said:
They're going for density here. Nothing more.
Click to expand...
 
ProjectEnd said:
I mean...
Click to expand...

I could have sworn they were out to make a profit and realize the most value from their land holdings. Density isn't necessarily compromised by increasing the quality of the product. If anything, it makes it an easier sell to the community, city, and the actual buyers. I stand by my comment.
 
Im beginning to think certain REITs (in specific SmartCentres) should just fully sell off the land holdings where they are planning massive redevelopment, if they're just going to come up with lazy half*** master plans made up with cheap buildings.

Dont get me wrong there are REITs that are fully willing to go the extra mile to create a well thought out, coherent neighbourhood (ie: First Capital) while bringng together the right team. Asides from their marquee and "flagship" builds in Vaughan, SmartCentres really doesnt give a damn.
 
junctionist said:
I could have sworn they were out to make a profit and realize the most value from their land holdings. Density isn't necessarily compromised by increasing the quality of the product. If anything, it makes it an easier sell to the community, city, and the actual buyers. I stand by my comment.
Click to expand...
Yes and no. In a market like Toronto's almost anything will sell so putting more effort in isn't really necessary. That said, SC have gone with DSAI, Gensler and HPA up in Vaughan and aA on the Golden Mile so I'm not sure why they would have slummed it with TFAI as design arch on this one.
Amare said:
Im beginning to think certain REITs (in specific SmartCentres) should just fully sell off the land holdings where they are planning massive redevelopment, if they're just going to come up with lazy half*** master plans made up with cheap buildings.

Dont get me wrong there are REITs that are fully willing to go the extra mile to create a well thought out, coherent neighbourhood (ie: First Capital) while bringng together the right team. Asides from their marquee and "flagship" builds in Vaughan, SmartCentres really doesnt give a damn.
Click to expand...
Again, yes and no. The SC has proven that they 'care' on other projects so why this one copped out is a bit of a mystery, but fundamentally a REIT is there to make money for its shareholders. It's literally there in the name: 'Real Estate Investment Trust'.
 
junctionist said:
I don't understand why this project is so bland. It's on the doorstep of two future rapid transit lines. Why not build a nice "village"-type development of attractive towers with retail along a landscaped street like Galleria on the Park? That project doesn't even have rapid transit access and looks much better designed.

There should be direct connections to the LRT and GO platforms, with fine-grained retail along Eglinton Avenue West, patios, and lush landscaping. There should also be at least a small office component with easy regional access via Line 5 and all-day service on the Barrie line. Perhaps there's an opportunity for a cultural/institutional component too given the excellent future transit access?

The first tower should be better than this one to set the tone for the whole project. Hopefully, it's just a study. They should invest more in this project because the area has so much potential to be great.
Click to expand...
It's because of the Councillors who don't live in the area, do not want it. Of course, if it were in their area, they would be all for it, and money is no object.
 
ProjectEnd said:
Yes and no. In a market like Toronto's almost anything will sell so putting more effort in isn't really necessary. That said, SC have gone with DSAI, Gensler and HPA up in Vaughan and aA on the Golden Mile so I'm not sure why they would have slummed it with TFAI as design arch on this one.

Again, yes and no. The SC has proven that they 'care' on other projects so why this one copped out is a bit of a mystery, but fundamentally a REIT is there to make money for its shareholders. It's literally there in the name: 'Real Estate Investment Trust'.
Click to expand...

If you're looking at investment, better built and higher-quality buildings tend to be better investments. Better buildings won't need as much maintenance and will encourage better maintenance and development on surrounding properties. They'll draw a broader range of potential buyers.

Most buyers aren't ignorant. They're looking at the site plans, the square footage, the designs both inside and outside, the amenities, whether retail is well integrated, the look and feel of the neighbourhood (which can often be enhanced with a new development), and the future potential for a property.
 
W. K. Lis said:
It's because of the Councillors who don't live in the area, do not want it. Of course, if it were in their area, they would be all for it, and money is no object.
Click to expand...
Not true. This has nothing to do with councillors interfering in development. Toronto does have a history of councillors not caring about "other" parts of the city, but this has nothing to do with it. It's a combination of the following a) developers that don't care b) bad architects c) no planning policies to stop this poop from getting built.
 
junctionist said:
If you're looking at investment, better built and higher-quality buildings tend to be better investments. Better buildings won't need as much maintenance and will encourage better maintenance and development on surrounding properties. They'll draw a broader range of potential buyers.

Most buyers aren't ignorant. They're looking at the site plans, the square footage, the designs both inside and outside, the amenities, whether retail is well integrated, the look and feel of the neighbourhood (which can often be enhanced with a new development), and the future potential for a property.
Click to expand...
I'm curious how you believe you could prove that a 'boring' building is a 'lower-quality' building? This all started with your post about the building being 'bland'. You're correct, it is bland, but it's a false choice to argue that 'bland' = 'worse'.
 
ProjectEnd said:
I'm curious how you believe you could prove that a 'boring' building is a 'lower-quality' building? This all started with your post about the building being 'bland'. You're correct, it is bland, but it's a false choice to argue that 'bland' = 'worse'.
Click to expand...

If everything else is equal in terms of construction quality and location, the bland building is inferior in quality to the attractive building. Design tends to elicit an emotional response in people, which is desirable from an investment standpoint. In residential real estate, houses with "character" tend to fetch higher prices, provided that they're not impractical to live in. In commercial real estate, many people will pay a premium for a tastefully restored 19th or early 20th century building.
 
junctionist said:
If everything else is equal in terms of construction quality and location, the bland building is inferior in quality to the attractive building. Design tends to elicit an emotional response in people, which is desirable from an investment standpoint. In residential real estate, houses with "character" tend to fetch higher prices, provided that they're not impractical to live in. In commercial real estate, many people will pay a premium for a tastefully restored 19th or early 20th century building.
Click to expand...
Pretty big 'if', there.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top