[RiverCity1]

Waterfront Toronto is holding a public meeting for anyone interested in the Lower Yonge Precinct, which includes this proposed development:

WEDNESDAY
MAY 22
2013
06:30pm - 09:00pm

Location:
PawsWay - 245 Queens Quay West (west side of the Simcoe WaveDeck)
Contact/RSVP:

info@waterfrontoronto.ca

More Details from WT:

"Waterfront Toronto and the City of Toronto will be undertaking two studies in the Lower Yonge Precinct: an Urban Design Guidelines study and a Transportation Master Plan Environmental Assessment (EA). Located between Yonge Street and Lower Jarvis Street, south of Lake Shore Boulevard and north of Queens Quay East, the Lower Yonge area encompasses about 9 hectares (22 acres) of prime waterfront land.

When complete, the studies will be used to inform the development of a Lower Yonge Precinct Plan led by the City of Toronto. The goal of this work is to provide Waterfront Toronto and the City of Toronto with the planning context required to develop policy and review development applications for these prime waterfront lands.

The Urban Design Guidelines will include direction on blocks, streets, parks and public realm. It will also set out requirements for building form and how buildings are arranged. The Transportation Master Plan EA will develop the framework for the transportation infrastructure required to support the development of the Lower Yonge Precinct. The section of Harbour Street from Lower Simcoe to Yonge Street will also be considered."

 

[DarkSideDenizen]

Relative to the GTA, housing prices in the city core are very high, however compared to other major world centers or "Alpha" cities, the cost here is much lower. Hopefully it will remain affordable and people will continue to see downtown Toronto as a great place to live.

 

[Oliver Tweed]

Mirvish built the POW theatre and is on record as stating that removing that theatre will help make all the other theatres stronger. When demand increases, he will replace the POW with a new theatre. If anyone has goodwill when it comes to theatres, it's him. There's no point building more cultural assets if we don't visit them.

If anything, a significantly higher downtown population will help our theatres, opera, symphony, ballet, museums, and galleries. One feeds the other. The 3 tower Mirvish-Gerhy proposal and this 1-7 Yonge multi-tower proposal will help our cultural industries. So would a downtown casino.

Well said. There's so much hand wringing and fretting about these big projects. It's like people have so little confidence in our city that they think every big proposal is going to ruin it. It's embarrassing. People: the city will be fine. Relax.

Admittedly, I'm less convinced that the casino is a good idea, but at the same time I am confident that it won't ruin downtown Toronto. No single development, no matter how big, has the power to do that. Maybe 50 years ago; not now.

 

[Register123]

Given the evident psychopathy behind bleu's various banned UT incarnations, the fact that he's single and so disdainfully disengaged from the "having kids" thing shouldn't be surprising. (Wouldn't be surprised if there's some covered-up subtext of past creepy/abusive behaviour, too.)

time for a ban me thinks, this is blatant example of breaking the forum's rules.

 

[44 North]

I know what you're saying, but I think that the economics might be against us. I think it's difficult to pull off something like the St. Lawrence neighbourhood today, and not just because all levels of government have effectively pulled out of the housing game. When St. Lawrence was first developed in the late 1970s, the value of that land was practically worthless. It was the remains of a disused railway marshalling yard on the edge of a downtown that few people cared about. Today, that land would be hard to convert to affordable, family-friendly townhomes, and I think that high density apartments is the only profitable option. If you want families to live in urban areas, I think the better bet is to get governments to allow density and mixed uses and also rebuild streets for more pedestrian-friendly uses on the "urban" edge: places like South Scarborough, the Queensway, Weston and Mt Dennis, parts of East York, etc. - and build the next generation of Bay and Gable-and-commercial strip neighbourhood there.

I also think you're still romanticizing the conversion of Bay and Gables to triplexes too much. Frankly, the reason they're being converted is because we are undersupplied with apartments (i.e. non-family housing) in the core, and we are resorting to turning formerly single family housing into apartments. There are two problems with this: the first is that those 100 year old semis were never meant to house 4 units and the conversions are shoddy and structurally poor (this is especially true of basement suites in buildings where the basement was merely supposed to store firewood). Secondly, and perhaps less importantly, converting Bay and Gables to multi-unit apartments often destroys the beauty of these buildings as facades are marred by ad hoc balconies and staircases built to service all those units.

I'm not adcocating building Bay & Gables. Perhaps maintaining the ones we have, but I'm in no way saying I want to see new crops of low-density detached single family homes built in our core. I'd just prefer seeing something - anything - that's not very tall glass condos.

What's more is that the conversion of the current single-family homes into triplexes is actually a re-re-conversion...i.e - many of these homes were multi-unit apartments several times over their history. With modern technology it shouldn't be any more difficult to do it again built to even better standards. Furthermore, the conversions to triplexes is held in check by what's been going on elsewhere: triplexes being converted back to single-family homes. This is one of the reasons why the downtown population density hasn't increased as drastically as people think...places like Cabbagetown, St Jamestown, most of the core....all had multi-unit dwellings in each home.

 

[44 North]

Why shouldn't it be the highest density? Presumably the thousands of people who have moved into the highrises around this area like the advantage of relatively cheap housing in the core.



Doesn't this suggest it's not an either/or situation? Like I said earlier, the city's a big place. It's possible to have really high density sites like 1-7 Yonge as well as more midrise developments like the WDL as well as lower rise density elsewhere. And, like HD said, the more people we can warehouse in places like 1-7 Yonge, the less demand to subdivide older houses and such, which should make them more affordable than they'd otherwise be.

Also, people at 1-7 Yonge are far more likely to walk to work than just about any other address in the City. Areas farther out (St. Lawrence, the DD, WDL, wtv) are far more likely to have residents using overcrowded streetcars, overcrowded roads or overcrowded subways. If Union or downtown is strained beyond capacity, better to put residents where they walk rather than rely on other forms of transit.

Warehouse...such an apt wording for this context.

The number one reason it shouldn't be the highest density is the congestion, and lack of current (and future) infrastructure capabilities to handle the hordes. People may be more likely to walk to work in this locale...but that in no way means the amount of residents actually walking will be any different than elsewhere in downtown. Residents will still own cars and drive to their jobs all over the GTA.

Either/or is okay. But when one of the two is such an utter extreme (e.g three 80-story towers), then it's a tricky balance. Again, I'm not an expert by no means, so it's hard for me to put what I want to say in words (or make any goddam sense it seems lol). I feel like in this situation we can't have our cake and eat it, too. As I understood, TO's population growth is something that is planned for. If we're going to dump all our future residents in skyscrapers in the core, then we might as well not be pushing for redevelopments on our waterfront - or in any of the former boroughs.

And the difference between LDL and this project is that transit and road congestion will be accounted for and planned accordingly. With this project, it's beyond an afterthought. Frankly, it's beyond a hope and prayer.

 

[adma]

time for a ban me thinks, this is blatant example of breaking the forum's rules.

*Bleu's* already banned, which may vindicate my point.

 

[ttk77]

*Bleu's* already banned, which may vindicate my point.

It's an awful lot like talking trash about someone behind their backs when they're not able to defend themselves. Not nice.

 

[diminutive]

The number one reason it shouldn't be the highest density is the congestion, and lack of current (and future) infrastructure capabilities to handle the hordes. People may be more likely to walk to work in this locale...but that in no way means the amount of residents actually walking will be any different than elsewhere in downtown. Residents will still own cars and drive to their jobs all over the GTA.

Downtown is congested because hundreds of thousands of people work there and most of them have to commute via GO, TTC or car. Downtown condos reduce demand on these services almost 1 for 1. The TTC has been quite clear that increasing downtown self containment is an easy way to limit congestion on the TTC & GO.

And the difference between LDL and this project is that transit and road congestion will be accounted for and planned accordingly. With this project, it's beyond an afterthought. Frankly, it's beyond a hope and prayer.

Hardly. The only thing we seem to be getting for all that development is a km stub streetcar line on Cherry. Other projects like the QQELRT, if they ever get built, would just feed directly into Union station anyways and severely impact congestion there.

 

[RC8]

Downtown is congested because hundreds of thousands of people work there and most of them have to commute via GO, TTC or car. Downtown condos reduce demand on these services almost 1 for 1. The TTC has been quite clear that increasing downtown self containment is an easy way to limit congestion on the TTC & GO.

This is a great argument for density, but a poor argument to support 80 story residential buildings.

Dynamism, a human scale, and strong neighbourhoods are possibly the largest determinants of the long-term viability of any given urban area. To what extent are these developments addressing those variables?

A very large amount of low-income Torontonians have to put up with sub-standard housing due to the decisions we made in the past to build stand-alone towers instead of neighbourhoods. If there is demand for these many units next to our downtown, we should - instead of taking it for granted - use that demand to build world-class neighbourhoods that deliver the future citizens of Toronto the highest possible quality of life.

Something that worries me about the way things are shaping up in the area is that the amount of retail relative to the number of people is very tiny. On top of that, all retail spots are owned by giant corporations. This means that there is a huge pressure to be immediately successful, and rents are very high... what you end up with is substandard corporate retail that is uncreative and fails to unleash the benefits of the added density above.

Increasing the number of independently owned retail units (not m2) per person in the central waterfront should be more of a priority than radically increasing the density of each tower. I believe that to achieve this it is crucial to spread some of this density horizontally as well as vertically.

 

[diminutive]

Dynamism, a human scale, and strong neighbourhoods are possibly the largest determinants of the long-term viability of any given urban area. To what extent are these developments addressing those variables?

Even assuming this is true (and there's really no evidence to suggest it is), how does tower height impact anything? Dynamism obviously has no relation with height. 'Strong neighborhoods' is tautological (all viable urban areas are strong neighborhoods, all strong neighborhoods are viable urban areas0. Regardless, there's no inherent relationship between it and height. Human scale is even more debatable since no scale is inherently human. Even granting the assumption that midrise='human scale' (and recent development protests in the Beaches or Ossington suggest this isn't a universal), street presence is 90% a function of podium design not tower height.

A very large amount of low-income Torontonians have to put up with sub-standard housing due to the decisions we made in the past to build stand-alone towers instead of neighbourhoods. If there is demand for these many units next to our downtown, we should - instead of taking it for granted - use that demand to build world-class neighbourhoods that deliver the future citizens of Toronto the highest possible quality of life.

These towers are not solely residential though. 1-7 contains retail, office, residential and hotel services apparently. I'm not sure a final plan for every square foot has been drawn up yet, but from the get go it's not fair to equate this with some kind of Cabrini-Green 2.0. And, again, the actual retail or non-residential uses of this development are almost totally unrelated to the residential density or height. They could just as well be midrise and still have boring or sterile retail options. Look at 44 North's St. Lawrence ideal neighborhood type. While I fully understand why many people would like the area, the Esplanade around there has hardly any retail space. There's one decent coffee shop and that's about it, despite being decidedly midrise.

I'd also note that many Torontonians live quite happily in the modernist single use projects of the 60s & 70s. Indeed, there are actually some fairly posh areas which are dominated by this built form (e.g. Avenue road north of St. Clair, parts of the Annex, Davisville). While it's not an ideal built form, it's hardly fair to link the socioeconomic status of areas like St. James town solely to this built form. Clearly, there are lessons to be learned (and newer, mixed use projects like the Regent Park development are correcting prior mistakes), but poverty is way more complex than urban built form.

Increasing the number of independently owned retail units (not m2) per person in the central waterfront should be more of a priority than radically increasing the density of each tower. I believe that to achieve this it is crucial to spread some of this density horizontally as well as vertically.

Spreading density horizontally wont make a lick of difference. I'm sure others can give a better explanation of why the central waterfront area has been dominated by generic retail (subway, dry cleaners, ect...), but it's got nothing really to do with height. While many earlier developments do have poor retail spaces, I think this is getting better. 1-7 Yonge looks like it will have a lot street presence and retail space, so I'm optimistic we'll get some good development.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

RC8:

Dynamism, a human scale, and strong neighbourhoods are possibly the largest determinants of the long-term viability of any given urban area. To what extent are these developments addressing those variables?

A significant portion of New York City have height and dynamism, and is viable in the long term due to the intensity of local activity. These characteristics need not be mutually exclusive - they are dependent upon the urban context in which they exist.

A very large amount of low-income Torontonians have to put up with sub-standard housing due to the decisions we made in the past to build stand-alone towers instead of neighbourhoods. If there is demand for these many units next to our downtown, we should - instead of taking it for granted - use that demand to build world-class neighbourhoods that deliver the future citizens of Toronto the highest possible quality of life.

Except these are not stand-alone towers, nor does these towers preclude other, differently scaled neighbourhoods from being constructed in the city. It's not an "either or" you've made it out to be.

Something that worries me about the way things are shaping up in the area is that the amount of retail relative to the number of people is very tiny. On top of that, all retail spots are owned by giant corporations. This means that there is a huge pressure to be immediately successful, and rents are very high... what you end up with is substandard corporate retail that is uncreative and fails to unleash the benefits of the added density above.

Perhaps, but would you call Hong Kong an example of uncreative retail that "fails to unleash the benefits of the added density above"? Furthermore, do you think that this prime site, if built to "human scale", would create anything but even bigger pressures to be immediately successful and catering to all but the most affluent (think Central Paris)?

Increasing the number of independently owned retail units (not m2) per person in the central waterfront should be more of a priority than radically increasing the density of each tower. I believe that to achieve this it is crucial to spread some of this density horizontally as well as vertically.

Except that increasing retail without the density at a high cost site ultimately produces high risk of business failures - like, just how would you create "independently owned retail units" who can at the same time afford exorbitant rent in a successful downtown neighbourhood?

AoD

 

[RC8]

Height and dynamism are strongly linked. I'm very wary of building things that we can't easily re-purpose down the line. Turning any given building in the Esplanade into something new would be much easier than turning an 80 story building or parts of it into anything else. Even increasing the size of a unit by merging two together becomes painfully more complex in an 80 story building than in a mid-rise one.

People in the Beaches and Ossington complaining about new developments are mostly fighting a demographic rather than height or density in my opinion. They are also trying to hang on to their lifestyle - whatever it is - and perceive new developments as a threat.

In any case, is there a precedent anywhere of this type of vertical density leading to anything other than to some soul-less overcrowded mall/canyon with people living highly stressful lifestyles?

 

[RC8]

A significant portion of New York City have height and dynamism, and is viable in the long term due to the intensity of local activity. These characteristics need not be mutually exclusive - they are dependent upon the urban context in which they exist.

There's very few (if any) residential towers in NY as high and as close together as they are being built and/or proposed in this part of Toronto.

Except these are not stand-alone towers, nor does these towers preclude other, differently scaled neighbourhoods from being constructed in the city. It's not an "either or" you've made it out to be.

That's what they said when they approved TIFF Bell Lightbox in the entertainment district, and it effectively proved to be a go-ahead for developers trying to equal the height of that tower.

Perhaps, but would you call Hong Kong an example of uncreative retail that "fails to unleash the benefits of the added density above"? Furthermore, do you think that this prime site, if built to "human scale", would create anything but even bigger pressures to be immediately successful and catering to all but the most affluent (think Central Paris)?

I haven't been to Hong Kong, but it definitely seems like the case, yes. My friend desperately wants to start a pub in HK because he says that the whole place is pretty much under-served by retail - unfortunately for him start-up costs are astronomical.

I think we are so far away from a Central Paris type of situation we don't need to worry about it at all at this stage.

All I'm advocating for is to use the current demand for units to build functional neighbourhoods that can be re-adapted in the future for larger families, etc. Building these towers as proposed, I believe - and willing to bet on it - will just serve a transient demographic who will inevitably become disenfranchised with the overcrowded high-stress lifestyle they provide.

Except that increasing retail without the density at a high cost site ultimately produces high risk of business failures - like, just how would you create "independently owned retail units" who can at the same time afford exorbitant rent in a successful downtown neighbourhood?

By having longer retail strips with more units it is possible to earmark more retail spots as mandatory non-franchised businesses. It's been done in places and works pretty well. It also helps surrounding chains by turning the neighbourhood into more of a destination.

If the number of people/retail is higher stake-holders are much less likely to agree to such solutions.

You can always put more retail indoors or underground, but that sort of ambiance is more conducive to depression than to a vibrant healthy community.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

There's very few (if any) residential towers in NY as high and as close together as they are being built and/or proposed in this part of Toronto.

Office towers are by their very nature even less engaging due to their function - and just what does residential use has anything to do with height, tower spacing and vitality?

That's what they said when they approved TIFF Bell Lightbox in the entertainment district, and it effectively proved to be a go-ahead for developers trying to equal the height of that tower.

Unlike King West, the site/area in question is practically a tabula rasa. Given what I have said, and I quote - "preclude other, differently scaled neighbourhoods from being constructed in the city" - you are basically arguing that approving this project (or TIFF) will keep EBF, WDL and Regent Park from acquiring a more intimate favour. That is indefensible.

I haven't been to Hong Kong, but it definitely seems like the case, yes. My friend desperately wants to start a pub in HK because he says that the whole place is pretty much under-served by retail - unfortunately for him start-up costs are astronomical.

Hong Kong is underserved by retail? You have got-to-be-kidding-me.

I think we are so far away from a Central Paris type of situation we don't need to worry about it at all at this stage.

Actually our pattern of urban development (i.e. high value in the core) has far more in common with European and Asian experiences than the typical North American hollowing out of the core.

All I'm advocating for is to use the current demand for units to build functional neighbourhoods that can be re-adapted in the future for larger families, etc. Building these towers as proposed, I believe - and willing to bet on it - will just serve a transient demographic who will inevitably become disenfranchised with the overcrowded high-stress lifestyle they provide.

Then advocate that the towers be designed in a manner that is conductive to units being merged, and/or dedicate a portion to units with more bedrooms and/or socioeconomic group. That's not a built form issue.

By having longer retail strips with more units it is possible to earmark more retail spots as mandatory non-franchised businesses. It's been done in places and works pretty well. It also helps surrounding chains by turning the neighbourhood into more of a destination.

What? So you want the city to get involved in the business of a) determining whether retail are non-franchised and b) earmarking retail spots in private developments on the basis of such? What of non-franchised and yet uber high end stores? Those are ok? Seriously, as someone who isn't necessarily against government intervention even I find that extremely heavy-handed.

You can always put more retail indoors or underground, but that sort of ambiance is more conducive to depression than to a vibrant healthy community.

I think we should do a survey of say, those at Eaton Centre and, I don't know, the Queen West stretch of Parkdale and see whether this has any objective truth to it.

AoD