HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #8501  
Old Posted Jul 12, 2017, 11:39 AM
koops65's Avatar
koops65 koops65 is offline
Intergalactic Barfly
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Quarks Bar
Posts: 4,709
Quote:
Originally Posted by urbandreamer View Post
Most of Manhattan--especially the desirable areas--is under 10 storeys.
What is that supposed to mean?

How about this? Most of the Earths surface is uninhabited... Big cities, like Toronto and NYC, cover only a small percentage of the planet.
__________________
My Diagram: http://skyscraperpage.com/diagrams/?searchID=52344624
A proud member of the former Airborne Regiment, 87-88
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #8502  
Old Posted Jul 12, 2017, 12:08 PM
Martin Mtl's Avatar
Martin Mtl Martin Mtl is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 6,419
Quote:
Originally Posted by ssiguy View Post
Toronto is obviously building a lot of towers but is definitely not becoming Manhattenized which is a very good thing. Toronto has tall buildings beside streets of beautiful Victorian & Georgian homes and beautiful townhomes that offers a comfort and familiarity New York doesn't have.

You could definitely say Vancouver has become Manhattenized due to having almost no SFH in the downtown and no row housing as they have nearly all been razed to the groundl but not Toronto.
Two things. First, when you write New York, it includes huge borough with huge amount of rowhouses, notably Brooklyn. But if you are only talking about Manhattan, there is still plenty of rowhouses, especially on the west side. New York is hardly highrises wall to wall.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #8503  
Old Posted Jul 12, 2017, 1:36 PM
isaidso isaidso is offline
The New Republic
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: United Provinces of America
Posts: 8,748
Quote:
Originally Posted by koops65 View Post

Downtown Toronto continues to grow. Upwards AND outwards... The neighbourhoods immediately adjacent to downtown will be Manhattanized, even if you DON'T like it...
Agree. Areas like the Annex, Cabbagetown, the area just north of the AGO, and some others will remain low rise but most of the rest in the downtown will be re-worked.

I have no issue with the height, scale, or lack of set backs on 203 College. There is no park or low rise residential to the north, only the U of T. To the south, those people won't like the height but they're not going to have any shadowing issues. We already have a similarly scaled building to the west on College near Spadina.

There will always be those who vigorously oppose change but the reality is that most of our main arteries are going to be re-developed into midrise or highrise. This is one spot where they can go a little taller due to what's north of it. Getting angry or lashing out because one doesn't like it is a pointless exercise. It's happening so lets make sure we get the best buildings of this scale we can.
__________________
World's First Documented Baseball Game: Beachville, Ontario, June 4th, 1838.
World's First Documented Gridiron Game: University College, Toronto, November 9th, 1861.
Hamilton Tiger-Cats since 1869 & Toronto Argonauts since 1873: North America's 2 oldest pro football teams
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #8504  
Old Posted Jul 12, 2017, 1:37 PM
WhipperSnapper's Avatar
WhipperSnapper WhipperSnapper is offline
I am the law!
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Toronto+
Posts: 16,518
Quote:
Originally Posted by koops65 View Post
Let's clear a few things up first. My use of the term Manhattanized was in the context of tall buildings, and dense city building too. Don't be deluded into thinking I consider Toronto on par with NYC when it comes to ALL of the parameters involved with being a great city. I'm being very much a "height" guy on this issue.
But there are a few things that Toronto does very much like New York, that are obvious to even the ordinary citizen, such as building tall towers all over the place... it's in the news quite often, it's become the new normal in fact.

Nobody can predict the future. It has yet to be determined if the Toronto that's being built now is sustainable or not. Far more than new buildings are being constructed.

Quality... while I certainly like seeing a well built skyscraper, I have to take the good with the bad, just like everyone else. I'm LAZY about showing up for community issues, always have been. Besides voting in Federal elections, I have never gone to local schools, churches, community centres, or whatever, for local matters of interest. And don't bother to single me out, since only a very small percent of the population actually does show up for these things. I'm part of the vast majority when it comes to "city building"...
You, and others who care more than the rest of us, will show up for local projects, and speak your piece, cast your vote, etc... congrats for being involved...
Umm. That's exactly what I said. Manhattanization is a term of excess used by NIMBYS and YIMBYism alike. It's either the fear or love of overly dense, air choking towers created on the misconception it represents Manhattan in any way.

Manhattan doesn't just plop big towers all over the place. It's is highly structured through unwavering district density caps. It's the opposite of what people fear from Manhattanization. Manhattanization or Dubaism has a reasonable shot in places like the Entertainment District (which council set the stage for against planners recommendations) due to Toronto's piecemeal site specific planning process To build tall in New York requires a large site or density transfers. The density transfer have the added bonus of actually preserving heritage buildings instead of what we do in Toronto. You won't see a string of 20 FAR projects built in the middle of a 5 FAR neighbourhood. The majority of the supertalls are not any denser than the much shorter towers around them. It's the insane real estate values that allowed them to be financially feasible and have many New Yorkers now questioning their impact on public spaces like Central Park which people like you usually find superficial to the height of towers. That's the problem with this development. The applicant is trying to squeeze too much density out of the small site with a very tall tower and a high lot coverage. This Toronto proposal crams in more density than the average New York supertall! It is ugly as shit too.

Your lackadaisical comment in regards to the OMB setting a precedence required a response. The last thing I wanted to do was get into another argument with you. There's absolutely no fun in it. I bow out now.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #8505  
Old Posted Jul 12, 2017, 1:48 PM
WhipperSnapper's Avatar
WhipperSnapper WhipperSnapper is offline
I am the law!
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Toronto+
Posts: 16,518
Quote:
Originally Posted by isaidso View Post
Agree. Areas like the Annex, Cabbagetown, the area just north of the AGO, and some others will remain low rise but most of the rest in the downtown will be re-worked.

I have no issue with the height, scale, or lack of set backs on 203 College. There is no park or low rise residential to the north, only the U of T. To the south, those people won't like the height but they're not going to have any shadowing issues. We already have a similarly scaled building to the west on College near Spadina.

There will always be those who vigorously oppose change but the reality is that most of our main arteries are going to be re-developed into midrise or highrise. This is one spot where they can go a little taller due to what's north of it. Getting angry or lashing out because one doesn't like it is a pointless exercise. It's happening so lets make sure we get the best buildings of this scale we can.
Look it's isaidso with his pompous and condescending "opposed to change" manta as if questioning the scale of this development is acting like some crazed NIMBY. LOL This probably constitutes a midrise to you or just a little taller than a midrise as you so eloquently put it. Of course, scale is nothing more than height, height, height with you. What a joke.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #8506  
Old Posted Jul 12, 2017, 2:20 PM
hipster duck's Avatar
hipster duck hipster duck is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Car-oriented Toronto
Posts: 1,848
I think the Beverly/College proposal is out of place, but I don't see how else that site could be redeveloped. Right now it's an ugly, 5 storey office building.

I'm not the world's greatest pro forma expert, but I don't know how the developer could buy the office building at market value, retain the office spaces in any future development, and make money without building a tower.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #8507  
Old Posted Jul 12, 2017, 2:51 PM
WhipperSnapper's Avatar
WhipperSnapper WhipperSnapper is offline
I am the law!
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Toronto+
Posts: 16,518
I find the height excessive but, I have much greater concerns over the proposed density that doesn't provide adequate buffers. The office building still has practical life to it. It doesn't necessarily need to be redeveloped to such extremes either.

I'm indifferent to proforma if it creates mediocre, out of scale, uglies like this. This is a developer that habitually outbids for these properties (pays way too much) and proceed to submit these out of place proposals hoping to capitalize on loose zoning controls and an overwork staff. I really hope it bites them in the ass sooner than later. For Toronto's sake.

Some forumers have put forth that this is a pointless debate and to just except this because it is out of our hands. Of course, there is some truth to it but, at the same time, SSP exists to discuss things most forumers have no control over.

P.S. All growth is good. There is no downside.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #8508  
Old Posted Jul 12, 2017, 4:23 PM
TorontoDrew's Avatar
TorontoDrew TorontoDrew is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 5,407
It doesn't take much imagination on how they could renovate that office building and even ad 3-5 floors on it. Looking at it from this angle Theory would tower over the Grange and U of T's south campus.
Lokk at it here: https://www.google.com/maps/@43.6586...7i13312!8i6656

source: https://www.torontocondo4u.ca
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #8509  
Old Posted Jul 12, 2017, 4:59 PM
osmo osmo is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 1,604
Quote:
Originally Posted by isaidso View Post
Agree. Areas like the Annex, Cabbagetown, the area just north of the AGO, and some others will remain low rise but most of the rest in the downtown will be re-worked.

I have no issue with the height, scale, or lack of set backs on 203 College. There is no park or low rise residential to the north, only the U of T. To the south, those people won't like the height but they're not going to have any shadowing issues. We already have a similarly scaled building to the west on College near Spadina.

There will always be those who vigorously oppose change but the reality is that most of our main arteries are going to be re-developed into midrise or highrise. This is one spot where they can go a little taller due to what's north of it. Getting angry or lashing out because one doesn't like it is a pointless exercise. It's happening so lets make sure we get the best buildings of this scale we can.
Where? All of Downtown has had blanket OP policies placed on it with Zoning tweaks to match, and nearly every inch has been picked over for development. What you see is what you get. Toronto keeps pushing for the development of the Streetcar avenues but it is full of awkward sized sites that you can't do much with.

All we are seeing not is the pushing for ultra density on sites that don't need it. One example is the Banknote at Bathurst and King which is a application for a monster tower that does not fit in with the "border" elements that Bathurst is supposed to have. That site should be left as it or redeveloped into a mid-rise but nobody can make it work I guess.

The UofT Theory Tower is way out of line. A few extra floors to the Office tower would be fine or a renovation of the ugly tower. Agree with other posters that it is just lazy attempts to justify numbers. Not our fault if they overpaid for that lot. Lots of these Brokers run off like bandits selling junky lots with empty promises of skycrapers on every corner.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #8510  
Old Posted Jul 12, 2017, 7:35 PM
koops65's Avatar
koops65 koops65 is offline
Intergalactic Barfly
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Quarks Bar
Posts: 4,709
Well, it seems that everyone has a different "vision" when it comes to seeing how Toronto will move on into the future... Some like tall towers, others don't. Some are pro development, while others would rather things become frozen in time and never change. Most people are in the middle of these extremes of course...
__________________
My Diagram: http://skyscraperpage.com/diagrams/?searchID=52344624
A proud member of the former Airborne Regiment, 87-88
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #8511  
Old Posted Jul 12, 2017, 8:26 PM
TorontoDrew's Avatar
TorontoDrew TorontoDrew is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 5,407
Quote:
Originally Posted by koops65 View Post
Well, it seems that everyone has a different "vision" when it comes to seeing how Toronto will move on into the future... Some like tall towers, others don't. Some are pro development, while others would rather things become frozen in time and never change. Most people are in the middle of these extremes of course...

source: https://www.torontocondo4u.ca
[/QUOTE]


It’s hardly fair to lump people into those categories based on not liking this one project. I’m pro development and pro tall towers but I’m also pro good development and this definitely is not a good development. I’m curious in this image where you see a need for more development? It looks like a perfectly developed inner city intersection with a great established mix use fabric. There is zero need for this building in terms of making the area better.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #8512  
Old Posted Jul 12, 2017, 8:47 PM
koops65's Avatar
koops65 koops65 is offline
Intergalactic Barfly
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Quarks Bar
Posts: 4,709
It isn't about this one project. It's about all development in Canada actually...
__________________
My Diagram: http://skyscraperpage.com/diagrams/?searchID=52344624
A proud member of the former Airborne Regiment, 87-88
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #8513  
Old Posted Jul 12, 2017, 10:04 PM
Echoes's Avatar
Echoes Echoes is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Saskatoon, SK
Posts: 3,487
Unremarkable in terms of design, and modestly sized by the standards of larger markets, but still a nice show of confidence in Saskatoon given current conditions:

Work on 9-storey World Trade Center Saskatoon to begin this Fall





https://twitter.com/CCLC_SK/status/885230509575380992

____

Meanwhile, excavation for the 11-storey East Tower of the River Landing complex is to begin this summer. Work is well underway on the hotel/condo on the west side of the site, and the central North Tower (new tallest for YXE) is slated for future development:


Source


Source
__________________
SASKATOON PHOTO TOURS
2013: [Part I] [Part II] | [2014] | [2016]
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #8514  
Old Posted Jul 13, 2017, 12:55 AM
WhipperSnapper's Avatar
WhipperSnapper WhipperSnapper is offline
I am the law!
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Toronto+
Posts: 16,518
Quote:
Originally Posted by koops65 View Post
Well, it seems that everyone has a different "vision" when it comes to seeing how Toronto will move on into the future... Some like tall towers, others don't. Some are pro development, while others would rather things become frozen in time and never change. Most people are in the middle of these extremes of course...
The two extremely are actually more alike than they think. One dismisses all development while the other accepts all development. Beyond that, they are the virtually same. They deal mostly in absolutes. There little room or interest in deeper analysis on whether a particular development adds or subtracts from the existing community.

They also get defensive and lash out when someone criticizes any particular tall development. See the rhetoric posted in last few pages.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #8515  
Old Posted Jul 13, 2017, 2:11 AM
GeneralLeeTPHLS's Avatar
GeneralLeeTPHLS GeneralLeeTPHLS is offline
Midtowner since 2K
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: Midtown Toronto
Posts: 2,651
Wow! I'm happy to see some more proposals coming to Saskatoon. That WTC project...though a tad unremarkable in architecture, will definitely be well for the city. The other triple tower project is great to see unravelling into construction..shows change in the core of that city.
__________________
"Living life on the edge"
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #8516  
Old Posted Jul 13, 2017, 7:32 AM
urbandreamer's Avatar
urbandreamer urbandreamer is offline
recession proof
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: @renderpornstar - twitter
Posts: 1,542
That WTC thing is hideous. It costs no more to window dress a building attractively vs some 4th tier catalogue building.

Imagine if all the condo units built in Toronto during the past 15 years had been in buildings between 4-6 storeys tall: we'd be looking at a denser overall city model.
__________________
I'd rather be homeless than live in a condo...but I do like watching attractive ones get built...like Woodwards, 42 in Waterloo, and anything by Daoust/Saucier+Perotte/Nomade/aA/Teeple
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #8517  
Old Posted Jul 13, 2017, 1:38 PM
Beedok Beedok is offline
Exiled Hamiltonian
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 6,398
Quote:
Originally Posted by urbandreamer View Post
Imagine if all the condo units built in Toronto during the past 15 years had been in buildings between 4-6 storeys tall: we'd be looking at a denser overall city model.
Apart from the downtown lots where the land value prices prevent that. Meaning a lot of demand would end up stuck out in Markham and Newmarket...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #8518  
Old Posted Jul 13, 2017, 1:51 PM
WhipperSnapper's Avatar
WhipperSnapper WhipperSnapper is offline
I am the law!
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Toronto+
Posts: 16,518
The land values are determined by buildable density. Land values would be a fraction of what they are if the zoning only allowed for 6 storeys.

There were plenty of short towers built and plenty more that failed at the very start of this ever lasting real estate cycle that most people would find absurd if proposed today. It wasn't even zoning. Preselling was difficult for towers as large as 150 units.

Last edited by WhipperSnapper; Jul 13, 2017 at 2:04 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #8519  
Old Posted Jul 14, 2017, 3:52 PM
Martin Mtl's Avatar
Martin Mtl Martin Mtl is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 6,419
Not a proposal anymore, since it's already under construction, but new renders of the Four Seasons/Holt Renfrew project.





Reply With Quote
     
     
  #8520  
Old Posted Jul 14, 2017, 4:57 PM
kwoldtimer kwoldtimer is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: La vraie capitale
Posts: 14,983
Interesting transition via the latticework between old and new.
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 11:40 PM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.