Windows going in on the 4th floor of the fancy building...

20260418_093500.jpg

20260418_093223.jpg


And the 2nd and 3rd floors are partially enclosed...

20260418_093843.jpg
 
Red October said:
Are you seriously equating places where people live to a raised concrete highway for suburban cars passing through? lmao
Click to expand...
If you lived through that entire campaign about the eyesore that is the Gardiner, and the “cutting off the lakeshore” - yes, yes I’m equating that.

Are you seriously going to tell me that the extra 20 storeys of luxury condos that will no doubt advertise “lake views” and go for 20% more because of that is going to “solve the housing crisis”?
 
xmyth_ said:
If you lived through that entire campaign about the eyesore that is the Gardiner, and the “cutting off the lakeshore” - yes, yes I’m equating that.

Are you seriously going to tell me that the extra 20 storeys of luxury condos that will no doubt advertise “lake views” and go for 20% more because of that is going to “solve the housing crisis”?
Click to expand...
Totally agree. The wall of ugly condos was not the right way to redevelop this area.
 
No..rail corridors, freeway overpasses and walls of condos are not very public accessible. But that’s the only real thing they have in common. And I know there is very little we can do about the first two. The latter could at least been improved upon, IMO.
 
UtakataNoAnnex said:
No..rail corridors, freeway overpasses and walls of condos are not very public accessible. But that’s the only real thing they have in common. And I know there is very little we can do about the first two. The latter could at least been improved upon, IMO.
Click to expand...

Yes and no, condos are definitely not publically accessible spaces, and are a wall that cuts the city off from even seeing the lake, or sky over the lake, for everyone that cannot afford it. It's not being improved either. Quite the opposite.

If the city, often, did not enforce walkways through many properties, these condos would wall off their entire property, including blocking the lakefront access as well.

Anyway, as far as I was concerned, from as early as the age of 8 years old, I wanted all the land south of the Gardiner to be park, recreation, and insitutional spaces. I even did a geography project on it, showing off what it would look like if we made the south side of the Gardiner open space for all.

Too late now. I feel it is the opposite of improving. The public is relegated to concrete walkways with a smattering of trees, parkettes here and there, and the occasional sandpit for usable public space along the majority of the core.

And no, Ookwemin doesn't solve the issue or make up for any of this either. It's just going to continue the trend. I expect a wall of condos to be built all along cherry and commissioner's, facing the park, as well.

Sadly, rich people and condos are entrenched along the harbourfront with more even taller, luxury, condos planned (or soon to be planned) along the entire length of it.

Oh well.
 
I was excited around 2012 when Sherbourne commons was stretching up from the lake to lakeshore, because the playground and water feature really did feel like we were trying to build something “promenade-esque”. Yeah the Gardiner and Lakeshore weren’t coming down, but it was a nicer walk from esplanade to the water.

I mean, even with what’s being proposed- is there a nicer walk south than Sherbourne Commons? Parliament and QQ will have the slip but it’s still gonna be a LOT of intersection, Jarvis kinda sucks. Yonge is blech, Bay has that inhospitable stretch of the convention hall. Lower Simcoe, Rees, Spadina, are all kinda gross and bland- York at least has Love Park, and Dan Leckie is welcoming with all that green space. Bathurst is an absolute canyon.

And feel free to correct me- but I feel like Parliament to Yonge is gonna be way more overbuilt than Yonge to Bathurst. Do other cities like Vancouver just spam condo towers close to their waterfront like this?

In any case, here’s this guy starting to peek over the coop on Parliament.
IMG_6145.jpeg


If you’re north of Lakeshore and below the 20th floor, prepare to never see sky again.
 
GameOnBrad said:
Yes and no, condos are definitely not publically accessible spaces, and are a wall that cuts the city off from even seeing the lake, or sky over the lake, for everyone that cannot afford it. It's not being improved either. Quite the opposite.

If the city, often, did not enforce walkways through many properties, these condos would wall off their entire property, including blocking the lakefront access as well.

Anyway, as far as I was concerned, from as early as the age of 8 years old, I wanted all the land south of the Gardiner to be park, recreation, and insitutional spaces. I even did a geography project on it, showing off what it would look like if we made the south side of the Gardiner open space for all.

Too late now. I feel it is the opposite of improving. The public is relegated to concrete walkways with a smattering of trees, parkettes here and there, and the occasional sandpit for usable public space along the majority of the core.

And no, Ookwemin doesn't solve the issue or make up for any of this either. It's just going to continue the trend. I expect a wall of condos to be built all along cherry and commissioner's, facing the park, as well.

Sadly, rich people and condos are entrenched along the harbourfront with more even taller, luxury, condos planned (or soon to be planned) along the entire length of it.

Oh well.
Click to expand...
Im not sure I would consider Ookwemin part of lake front…as it is more a constructed island returning part of our watershed back from shipping ports and tank parks that once dominated there. And it still has time to correct some of the ills that afflicted our waterfront residential wise…

…but as for the rest, points taken.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top