And as an aside, I found the towers having a futuristic flavour remarkably similar to those in the future SF in the new Trek movie.

AoD
 
People who live higher up in buildings and experience crowding regularly are more likely to present anti-social behaviour, less likely to leave home, etc. This is true for residential towers but not necessarily for office towers.

The history of Toronto's current boom is one of precedents dictating heights. I feel that the future development of a mid-rise waterfront neighbourhood directly to the east of this site may be jeopardised.

Hong Kong may be underserved by retail not because there aren't vast amounts of it, but because its population could maybe support even more if this weren't limited by its built-form. As I said though, this I gather from people who are trying to open a business in HK and have been frustrated by astronomical rents.

European and Asian cities don't usually have to deal with the sprawl that we do, however. The sprawling and centralised nature of our city means we currently have overcrowding in the core and super low densities around it, while simultaneously having to accommodate hundreds of thousands of commuters coming downtown from far away. I don't think there's any need to allow extreme residential heights here, and we could just as well make the core more accessible by building mid-rise neighbourhoods around it. Most of the overcrowding in the area is caused by suburban commuters.

Dynamism isn't just about merging units. Right now it's easier in a mid-rise building to: install green roofs, provide bicycle parking, add communal gardening areas, retro-fit the parking area to support electric cars, convert a residential building to office and vice-versa, demolish, etc. We don't know what the future will bring, but it will likely be easier to adapt to it by embracing a more dynamic built-form.

I do want the city to help create spaces for local non-corporate entrepreneurs. High-end non-franchised stores are fine by me, and I doubt landlords would complain about them and wish for a starbucks instead. This is off-topic though.

Regarding indoor retail:

Let's do a survey of people who work long hours in the PATH and compare that to people who work long hours in an equivalent victorian retail strip.
 
I dont think we have to worry. These will never even be a hole in the ground. The best looking projects ever preposed for Toronto never make a shovel to the ground. But if they had, Toronto would have had one amazing skyline. hmm future project for someone to make a render of the toronto that could be by now.
 
I'm not sure I agree.....given Pinnacle's track record, we may actually see these rise before Oxford or Mirvish/Gehry....just my opinion...

/and anyone arguing against highrise density at this location - is just misguided imo...
 
RC8 said:
Hong Kong may be underserved by retail not because there aren't vast amounts of it, but because its population could maybe support even more if this weren't limited by its built-form. As I said though, this I gather from people who are trying to open a business in HK and have been frustrated by astronomical rents.
Click to expand...

For a place where entrepreneurial spirit is the life source of the city's engine ever since its conception, there is certainly no shortage of retail. I would even consider HK to be the world's most capitalist society, pure economics in its rawest form. Where proverbial mom and pop's have been finding ways to make a living, even in closet sized shops that make Pacific Mall cubicles look generous. Quality of retail is a subjective and culturally relative matter. As with most city's in Asia, western style retail establishments are considered a luxury status. There are plenty and a growing number of areas that cater to expat "gweilos". The prestige of these places such as Lan Kwai Fong, Soho, or Stanley Market compounds the premium that need to be paid. Rents are astronomical for everybody there, not just for foreigners looking to set up a new trendy spot. Speaking of which, I visited a surprising chic French restaurant on the 14th floor of an obscure commercial building in Causeway Bay a couple years ago. Goes to show that retail lives and breathes in every nook and cranny possible in HK.
 
Last edited:
yyzer said:
...given Pinnacle's track record, we may actually see these rise before Oxford or Mirvish/Gehry....just my opinion...
Click to expand...

Totally agree. As soon as this was announced, I thought that of the three mega projects right downtown, that this would be the relatively "easiest" to approve and to move forward with construction.
 
RC8 said:
People who live higher up in buildings and experience crowding regularly are more likely to present anti-social behaviour, less likely to leave home, etc. This is true for residential towers but not necessarily for office towers.
Click to expand...

Evidence please. You have this habit of making declarations about the social behaviour of people in a context where a million other factors are at play. It was the same with the 'casinos cause crime' argument you put forth in that other thread. I have never heard of a study that makes the link between the height of an apartment and some measure of 'antisocial behaviour' - whatever that was. If there is a link, it's probably muddied by a million other things.

The history of Toronto's current boom is one of precedents dictating heights. I feel that the future development of a mid-rise waterfront neighbourhood directly to the east of this site may be jeopardised.
Click to expand...

There's a precedence of setting taller heights, but no precedence of those heights affecting adjacent neighbourhoods. Last time I checked, Granby and McGill street, directly across from the 75 storey Aura, are still rows of 2 storey townhomes with no applications to demolish them and replace them with towers.

Hong Kong may be underserved by retail not because there aren't vast amounts of it, but because its population could maybe support even more if this weren't limited by its built-form. As I said though, this I gather from people who are trying to open a business in HK and have been frustrated by astronomical rents.
Click to expand...

Listen, Hong Kong is not underserved by retail of any kind, whether it's "high end" fashion or "low end" vegetable markets and food. And often they don't compete for space with each other. In a neighbourhood like Central, you could walk out of a clothing store with prices higher than anything in Yorkville and be confronted with a market scene that makes Chinatown look like Pusateri's. You should probably go there before you make baseless assumptions.

Right now it's easier in a mid-rise building to: install green roofs, provide bicycle parking, add communal gardening areas, retro-fit the parking area to support electric cars, convert a residential building to office and vice-versa, demolish, etc. We don't know what the future will bring, but it will likely be easier to adapt to it by embracing a more dynamic built-form.
Click to expand...

Really? Again, show me the evidence. Are you quoting your 'facts' from pro formas you helped write? How does a midrise condo make it intrinsically easier to do anything you just said? A lot of that stuff is difficult to do because it's economically prohibitive, no matter what, or because laws and ownership structure make it difficult - it has nothing to do with height. For example, converting half of the units from condominium ownership to commercial real estate would face exactly the same legal and logistical hurdles - getting approval from the condo board and its voting members, having enough owner occupiers willing to sell, etc. - in a 7 storey building as it would in a 70 storey building; how is building bicycle parking - which is basically just a cage - any more difficult to install in the parking garage of a high rise than a mid-rise? If there aren't electric parking stalls in a condo building, maybe it's because it's a horrible return-on-investment gimmick, and not because the building it's in is tall.


Regarding indoor retail:

Let's do a survey of people who work long hours in the PATH and compare that to people who work long hours in an equivalent victorian retail strip.
Click to expand...

Survey of what?
 
The survey comment and the rest of my post was in response to AoD's post above. I speculate that people working in the PATH will report lower levels of well-being than people working in an equivalent Victorian retail strip.

I provided enormous amounts of evidence for both points you raise (casino and crime link and height + overcrowding and anti-social behaviour) and I've just stopped quoting it since no matter how often I brought it up people couldn't even go a page back. Look it up, it's out there.

TIFF BLB was supposedly not even going to affect zoning within the neighbourhood. Everyone assured us of it. But it did. I'm not worried about Cabbage Town or The Annex, but I do worry about the waterfront community immediately east of this site.

I don't know about HK, hence I said 'may' and 'maybe'. I do know from various health stats that whatever they are doing in HK is healthier and better than western suburbs, but that doesn't mean it is necessarily optimal. The same is true for Manhattan.

Regarding the dynamism of mid-rise buildings, I'm talking simply from the experience of living in mid-rise buildings for years and very easily changing stuff around, versus living in high-rise buildings for years and finding it pretty much impossible to effect change. If you do a bit of research into the history of urban re-purposing of things you'll see that re-purposing of high rises is monstrously difficult compared to any other built-form. It is objectively much easier to re-adapt a mid-rise built-form than a high-rise built form in virtually every way. Getting 40 landowners to agree to sell their properties is much easier than getting 400, for instance. Bicycle parking for people in a mid-rise building may entail the removal of two parking spots, whereas in a high-rise in may require the removal of 15 or more, with each parking spot being considerably more valuable in the first place.

If there is one value which we absolutely must embrace in the built-form we choose to build now, in my opinion, it is dynamism and potential for future re-purposing. This, I believe, necessarily involves building at scales that are relatively independent from all modes of motorised transport and that do not require massive investments for change or maintenance. In the long term, we basically can't go wrong if we adhere to the principle of building dynamic people-friendly communities.
 
AlbertC said:
Thanks for sharing those, there's definitely some new renderings in there. This image showing the massing density structures in the area with development potential of LCBO site is especially striking.
Click to expand...

It also shows two new towers around the Harbour Commission building
 
AlbertC said:
Thanks for sharing those, there's definitely some new renderings in there. This image showing the massing density structures in the area with development potential of LCBO site is especially striking.


http://www.flickr.com/photos/roxxstarr/8769014403/
Click to expand...

The tallest tower shown on the LCBO lands looks to be in line with the rumoured 75 floors we have known of for a while now.
 
RC8 said:
If there is one value which we absolutely must embrace in the built-form we choose to build now, in my opinion, it is dynamism and potential for future re-purposing. This, I believe, necessarily involves building at scales that are relatively independent from all modes of motorised transport and that do not require massive investments for change or maintenance. In the long term, we basically can't go wrong if we adhere to the principle of building dynamic people-friendly communities.
Click to expand...

"dynamic people-friendly communities" is just a complete abuse of the english language. Nobody is against that goal; the issue is there is no agreement on what it means.

There is absolutely zero evidence to suggest a midrise building is any more 'adaptable' to anything than a high or low rise. Structurally, I don't think there's any difference between midrise and highrise buildings in Toronto anyhow outside of floorcount. Adaptability is more a product of builder provisions in terms of things like knock out walls. And adapt to what, exactly? No residential structure in Canada will ever get converted to industrial uses. Even the original industrial warehouses which have been converted to residential or commercial would make terrible industrial spaces today.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top