I said social issues nor urban issues. Plus I love the 'renderporn' and shiny renderings and flashy images! This is what I like to drool about. That's why I'm here. Some of us like that and care about that. Thank you very much.
 
LUVIT! said:
I said social issues nor urban issues. Plus I love the 'renderporn' and shiny renderings and flashy images! This is what I like to drool about. That's why I'm here. Some of us like that and care about that. Thank you very much.
Click to expand...

And some of us like to discuss social issues (which are inherently urban issues, unless you somehow think homelessness, affordable rent, drug addiction and abuse and austerity aren't social or urban issues), especially ones that are so pointedly connected to a proposal like this one. If you want to just drool over images, feel free to but I see no reason why we shouldn't debate social issues just because you're not interested. Set me to ignore if it really bothers you that much.
 
Who said I'm bothered. I don't even know you or care. I won't set you on 'ignore' I'll simply ignore you. I can't wait to see the pics! This area needs change in a big way. In addition I hope that the issues you mention are given great consideration.
 
LUVIT! said:
Who said I'm bothered. I don't even know you or care. I won't set you on 'ignore' I'll simply ignore you. I can't wait to see the pics! This area needs change in a big way. In addition I hope that the issues you mention are given great consideration.
Click to expand...
You seem to think that architecture is independent of its context. That's simply wrong and "drooling over renderporn" is really rather juvenile.
 
It's not only juvenile but annoyingly privileged. If there's one thing about UT that drives me mental, it's the legions of people who refuse to entertain that there are issues and concerns beyond architecture. Not that I'm above commenting on architecture, nor am I totally opposed to development (though I definitely disagree with the pell-mell and ridiculous system the city currently has) but is it really too much to ask that people consider the effects of the flashy rendered condos? And, if that is too much to ask, then at least don't make statements like "I just want to look at the proposals. What's with the BS from some regarding deep social issues that seem to be knee jerk reactions rather than information." Or at least accept that making such a provocative comment (maliciously or not) is going to provoke a reaction.

This is a forum for discussion and that includes discussing the issues surrounding urban development. If you really just want pictures and accolades for tall and shiny buildings, I'd suggest browsing Skyscraperpage, where basically the entire content of some threads is "Ooh, look at this shiny building!" and "Wow, look at that shiny building." Also copious amounts of petty, intercity rivalry.
 
That's fair, and I think a lot of people do discuss the affects of these proposals on the community and are rather insightful since it seems manypeople have very different perspectives. I for one often think these social components are very interesting.
I agree they are important issues to discuss.

I also think it's ok to look at projects from a purely aesthetic standpoint. It can be fun and exciting, and a way to forget all the shit in our own lives. I think its ok not wanting to get into the politics all the time.

I do however find it very offensive when people blatantly talk about pushing out those of low income and don't seem to understand that a lack of money does not equate societal worth.
 
It is not too much to ask other members to consider the social implications of the development going on in Toronto, but it is too much to demand it. Everyone is different. Engage with those who speak your language, but don't tell other members who don't feel the same way you do to leave UrbanToronto.

42
 
Gee, pretty tall for this area:eek:

245 QUEEN ST E
Ward 28 - Tor & E.York District

Proposal for rezoning and official plan amendment related to mixed-use development of three storeys, 39, 45, and 39 storeys respectively with a total non-residential gross floor area of 31578 m2 and a total of 1645 residential units with below grade parking
Proposed Use --- # of Storeys --- # of Units ---
Applications:
Type Number Date Submitted Status
OPA & Rezoning 16 118638 STE 28 OZ Feb 19, 2016 Under Review


 
No way they get that height here. Tallest in the area is like 25 tops. Quite frankly I don't think 45 floors is appropriate in the area either.
 
It'll be a tough sell for sure but I have no problem with that kind of height here if the scheme is ambitious enough in its offer. Given that WAM has gone with HPA for a few other things, I don't think it's a stretch to believe they'll be employed here as well.
 
I think it depends on what the scheme is.. but I'm leaning towards 45 storeys being a bit much for this area.. a subway stop does not automatically equate to tall buildings... there's others ways of achieving high density... But it's early days, and most likely a shoot for the moon strategy.

Properties:
12 BRIGDEN PL
8 BRIGDEN PL
106 ONTARIO ST
78 ONTARIO ST
90 ONTARIO ST
245 QUEEN ST E
257 QUEEN ST E
261 QUEEN ST E
265 QUEEN ST E
267 QUEEN ST E
269 QUEEN ST E
271 QUEEN ST E
273 QUEEN ST E
275 QUEEN ST E
277 QUEEN ST E
281 QUEEN ST E
283 QUEEN ST E
285 QUEEN ST E
354 RICHMOND ST E
360 RICHMOND ST E
384 RICHMOND ST E

Screen Shot 2016-02-23 at 11.19.26 AM.png


Anyway, this is quite the land assembly.... It better not disappoint!
 

Attachments

  • Screen Shot 2016-02-23 at 11.19.26 AM.png
    Screen Shot 2016-02-23 at 11.19.26 AM.png
    477.3 KB · Views: 1,207
Stupidandshallow said:
I think it depends on what the scheme is.. but I'm leaning towards 45 storeys being a bit much for this area.. a subway stop does not automatically equate to tall buildings... there's others ways of achieving high density... But it's early days, and most likely a shoot for the moon strategy.
Click to expand...

Of course high density doesn't necessarily equate to height, but in this case you'd probably go taller in order to avoid block filling developments that leave a minimum of open space. A mix that combines point tower and mid-rises would probably be the best.

AoD
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top