Toronto - 75-storey condo a sign city ready to rise again

[M II A II R II K]

DiManno: 75-storey condo a sign city ready to rise again


Apr 25 2010

By Rosie DiManno

http://static.thestar.topscms.com/app_themes/standard/images/common/thestar_logo.gif

Read More: http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/article/800500--dimanno-75-storey-condo-a-sign-city-ready-to-rise-again?bn=1

Viewing portals surrounding the mammoth condo construction project at Gerrard and Yonge Streets allow passersby to look down at what will rapidly be going up. It’s a cavernous crater at the moment, the subterranean landscape all cluttered with goppledy-goppledy equipment: giant drills and excavators, cement trucks spinning their contents, cranes still at the baby stage of their perpendicular sprout, everything churning purposefully on a weekend afternoon because development — like rust — never sleeps.

- An observer is particularly mesmerized by the humongous corkscrew thingy that plunges into the earth, pushing ever deeper into yet another hole for the placement of iron rebar and concrete, the underpinning for what will eventually emerge as a 75-storey, 243-metre high condo skyscraper, the tallest residential building in Canada.

- This condo complex, abutting the south side of College Park — Aura it’s called, after the fashion of la-la-lofty nomenclature for all new buildings a-borning — has itself become a metaphor, apparently, for Toronto transformed into a vertical city, at least for those who worship at the altar of Up. Of course, T.O. is hardly a stranger to the skyscraper scramble, with the glut of elongated bank towers at the bottom of Bay, testament to an earlier building boom of proudly (if grimly) erect financial HQs.

- But those are workplaces with some uninspired retail malls at the bottom that turn into wastelands in the evening and weekends. The new growth, metastasizing like urban ganglia, is all about the residential as, evidently, a whole lot of people would like to live downtown and have the money to afford these posh addresses. That’s an indicator, I’m told, of an economically healthy metropolis with a lively inner core, though a bunch of those planned condo developments that looked so splashy and come-hither in glossy purchase brochures were stopped in their upwardly surging tracks when the financing fell apart.

- Not to worry, development gurus and their political acolytes tell us; that stunting era has passed and Toronto is plump for progress again, reinventing itself anew as an Emerald City of high-rise sheaths and glass-glistening colossi, honkin’ huge blades of steel climbing towards the heavens like modern-day ziggurats.




http://www.stockhouse.com/Blogs/ViewDetailedPost.aspx?p=85838

http://realosophy.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/2007/11/16/aura.jpg

[OhioGuy]

Seems like I saw a lot of cranes when I was in Toronto a few weeks ago. My impression was that the city seemed to be doing well in terms of construction. There seemed to be condo construction going on everywhere. And I gotta say I like the look of this tower.

[MolsonExport]

A very nice one. Read about it in the Globe and Mail.

[min-chi-cbus]

So despite the fact that the WORLD is in a global recession and its neighbor to the south was the catalyst for that recession, they are building condo towers in Toronto (I hope this isn't spec!)? Even if Canada or Toronto are faring well during the recession outside systematic factors can create market problems. Clearly this isn't a problem or they wouldn't be building this......I'm just a little surprised!

[vid]

I've known about this building for a while, and I don't even follow Toronto construction. I guess the article is just saying "now that the recession is ending, buildings that were proposed 4 years ago are now being built"?

[M II A II R II K]

The same goes for towers currently going up just a kilometre up the street in that area.

[WhipperSnapper]

I really don't care when this was proposed but yeah, this one had significant sales before the recession hit. However, there are a large number breaking ground that sold out after the bust ... the 65 storey Ice 2 is one of them.

Lot of real estate investors parking money in Toronto's condo market right and pushing prices to insane levels. Our employment sector is not looking pretty right now either.

[Dr Nevergold]

Fantastic, except for it'll block my view when staying at the Delta Chelsea.

[miketoronto]

To be honest, I don't think this project is that great at all.
This is one of the main intersections in downtown Toronto, and one of the busiest. And it does fine without condo dwellers.

Downtown Toronto has gone way to wild with the condo and downtown residential while forgetting that a city and downtown needs business.
That spot at Yonge-Bloor should have been saved for office and more retail development, than another condo.
But the city seems more content on making Toronto a place to sleep and not to work.

There has to be a balance, and right now there is not. It is all about residential.

Same with Aura on Yonge. That prime site should have been office with retail.

[WhipperSnapper]

How did I know miketoronto would complain about not enough office space. Gawd, you ideal city is so 1950s suburbia with a slight twist. A large core of commercial towers surrounded by bedroom communities supported by higher order transit. You seem completely oblivious to mixed uses where people can walk short distances and bypass transit commutes altogether.

To express the extent of your lunacy, You have even recently expressed concern that people from Guelph and Kitchener/Waterloo are no long driving the 70+ kilometres to shop in downtown Toronto.


Aura is roughly 800,000 square feet residential and 200,000 commercial retail.

Our rather large downtown area (most wouldn't choose to walk it from end to end) has around 65 million square feet of commercial office space alone and a population of maybe 180,000. If anything, there's far, FAR too much employment capacity.

[niwell]

It's worth noting that the area classified by the city as "downtown Toronto" has added approximately 40,000 jobs (mostly office) since 2004. Neither the Aura or 1 Bloor sites are particularly suited for new office uses either, particularly considering the number of potential proposals closer to the financial district.

The areas of the city where land should be reserved for future office development are in the suburban Centres and key sites on Avenues. These are the areas where a large impetus for residential development exists with a stagnating employment base. Of course in order to attract developments significant financial incentives and/or a rethinking of Toronto's business tax rates are necessary. Downtown will continue to do fine.

Also, I can't stand Rosie Dimanno (the author of this article). She's consistently annoying and shrill.

[miketoronto]

How did I know miketoronto would complain about not enough office space. Gawd, you ideal city is so 1950s suburbia with a slight twist. A large core of commercial towers surrounded by bedroom communities supported by higher order transit. You seem completely oblivious to mixed uses where people can walk short distances and bypass transit commutes altogether.


It is true. We are eating up land that should be for employment uses. These condo dwellers first of all are not going to add anything to the neighbourhood, as they are either not there half the time, or just there for a year or two, before departing for the suburbs, once the kids arrive.

There is more than enough residential downtown, and the balance of residential and commercial has tipped much too far twords residential during the past 20 years.

WhipperSnapper you are just caught up along with most of the planners in the fad of downtown residential.
I like a balance, and right now Toronto does not have a balance.



To express the extent of your lunacy, You have even recently expressed concern that people from Guelph and Kitchener/Waterloo are no long driving the 70+ kilometres to shop in downtown Toronto.


It is not lunacy. It is called being a big city and being a regional attraction. Places like Paris, London, and New York are glad they are destinations for residents from smaller regional cities to come in for the day. Why should Toronto be content being a place for only residents?
Every big city should be an attraction.
Actually whipperSnapper it is lunacy to think Toronto should fade as the number one destination in the region. In fact I hope we attract people to come in just to shop, eat, and entertainment themselves from more than 70 kms away.
The tourism people would not be happy with you, thinking people should never venture outside a 5km radius of their homes. How boring.



Aura is roughly 800,000 square feet residential and 200,000 commercial retail.


Yonge-Bloor is not the place for residential. That should be a nice 100 story office tower, with a nice 5 story vertical mall, like the ones on Michigan Ave in Chicago.



Our rather large downtown area (most wouldn't choose to walk it from end to end) has around 65 million square feet of commercial office space alone and a population of maybe 180,000. If anything, there's far, FAR too much employment capacity.


Actually we are far far far below employment capacity. If Toronto was like any of its other world cousins, we would probably have double the amount of office space we have, and double the workers we have.

Unlike the current fad of downtown residential. I believe a downtown should be what it has always been, a mixed use metropolitan centre. A place with big business, major retail, entertainment, theatres, and yes some residents. But too many residents will upset what makes downtown exciting. Because with residents comes a clamp down on all the action that makes downtown what it is.

But anyway all I was saying was that Toronto has to start building other stuff downtown. We have done the residential, and now its time to bring in the office, education, entertainment, etc. The other sectors have been taking a backseat to residential.

Toronto has always had a good track record of downtown residential. But in previous years it was more balanced along with massive commercial expansion. Now it is all about residential. Well at the end of the day, residents need jobs. Ohh I forgot. The current fad means they are suppose to drive to their suburban office park job.
Because that is what they are doing. They are sure and will never hop on a bus out to Mississauga.


Funny WhipperSnapper that you say my ideas are 1950's views. I did not know advocating for jobs in my city, was so 1950's.

I think I need to move to Rochester, Calgary, Buffalo, Montreal, or the countless other cities that think getting more downtown jobs and office space is great.

A truly healthy downtown does not need downtown residents to stay healthy and busy. Probably 95% of the stuff downtown relies on people coming in from other areas of the city to survive. The truth is downtown residents can not support a metropolitan downtown on their own. So this war on stopping downtown from being a destination and instead just a neighbourhood for the couple people who can afford fancy condos, is just stupid.

Yonge Street should not even have condos on it. It should be lined with offices, retail, and bring back the night clubs. Make it the grand old main street it once was. Forget the screeming condo dwellers who will put the breaks on any new nightlife in the area.

WhipperSnapper you really need to get off the fads. Whats next, a new light rail line, which is another new fad which is used way to often.

[kool maudit]

I think I need to move to Rochester, Calgary, Buffalo, Montreal, or the countless other cities that think getting more downtown jobs and office space is great.

yeah, maybe go move to rochester. i hear it's pretty cutting edge, and there is none of this 75-storey condo tower bullshit going on.

[miketoronto]

yeah, maybe go move to rochester. i hear it's pretty cutting edge, and there is none of this 75-storey condo tower bullshit going on.

You got that right. They understand a city needs jobs, and actually just scored getting three suburban firms to move back downtown.
They know what they are doing.
Toronto on the other hand can't wait to kick out those nasty workers, so that we can welcome more new residents.

We should see messages like this one from Rochester, a lot more in Toronto. But of course we don't, because Toronto only thinks residents bring vibrancy.

This quote is from the Rochester City website about the new office for ESL which will be downtown instead of in the suburbs.

"The City would like to thank ESL Federal Credit Union for their confidence and helping to add to our city's success."

[kool maudit]

that's why i suggested it. rochester is clearly kicking toronto's ass on so many levels.

[miketoronto]

that's why i suggested it. rochester is clearly kicking toronto's ass on so many levels.

Toronto is no longer the urban jewl in the region. The rust belt cities that people love to make fun of, like Rochester are starting to hold their own. They have all started renewal and in some cases can teach Toronto a lesson or two.

Toronto must look to its neighbours to get ideas and learn some things, in addition to showing the world our ideas to.

Anyway I am going to stand by my view, that Yonge-Bloor should be a nice big office tower, not a condo. :)
I think the city is obsessed with residents, and forgets that us the residents need jobs.

This is what downtown is supposed to be.

From the City of Buffalo.


"Working Downtown means office and other commercial space is high quality, in demand, and supports sustained job growth to maintain Downtown as the regional center, not only for government, but for finance, insurance, real estate, law, life sciences, and business incubation"

"Downtown is “one destination with many attractions” offering something for people of all ethnicities, incomes, interests, and lifestyles. It is user friendly for new and repeat visitors and hotels, restaurants, and entertainment and cultural venues are thriving."

"Downtown is a demand area for residence."

[niwell]

I would like to reiterate that employment is growing at a fair clip downtown with the exception of the recent year where it remained relatively static (external economic forces, ie: recession). It's pretty much the only area of the city that doesn't need assistance with respect to employment. And in the large scheme of things nobody is getting displaced by this residential development. The lot Aura is being built on has been vacant for almost a century and there are in fact plenty of areas reserved for office and institutional use, plus a significant amount of historic warehouse stock that can be used as such.

And it's one thing to wax poetic about how things should be but a completely different one to propose solutions as to how this can be accomplished. How exactly should Toronto attract offices to subpar locations that currently permit residential land uses? Particularly when there are better locations already reserved for office growth and a huge amount of inventory has recently been added?

[M II A II R II K]

But do we really want to make rush hour more crowded on that same stretch of road. And why must it be an office tower anyway.

I say develop Lakeshore East and Queens Quay and perhaps put office towers there in virgin territory, and would also spread it out a bit.

[alps]

I'm not super familiar with the Toronto situation, but it seems to me like there's a great balance of residential and office going up. The RBC, Telus, and Bay-Adelaide towers are all office, no? Residential brings in the nightlife and culture more than office towers do.

[vanman]

Reading that article was like taking sandpaper to my brain. Idiocracy is not just a movie.........

[miketoronto]

Residential brings in the nightlife and culture more than office towers do.

In a healthy downtown you don't need residents to bring in nightlife. It happens naturally from downtown being the centre of the city and a choice area to hang out. That has been how it always works in cities that don't have dead downtowns.


In fact residents can be the downfall of downtown entertainment, as can be seen in the entertainment district, where residents who just moved in are trying to kill downtown nightlife, because they want it to be quiet like the suburbs.
Downtown is not about being quiet. And when you bring in a lot of residents to areas that do have entertainment, it can cause problems.


Anyway it is not like I said we should have no residents. I just think Toronto is not putting enough focus on employment. I think we have become obsessed with downtown residents as being the savour. Well they are not. Like everything you need a balance. And right now we are not balancing.

Niwell, I know employment has grown. But Toronto is far behind, even regionally. 40,000 jobs is nothing compared to what Toronto was adding before the 1990's. And in fact our downtown is just now hitting employment levels seen in 1989. This while the surrounding region has added hundreds of thousands of new jobs. The city just does not put enough focus on business development.

[M II A II R II K]

In a healthy downtown you don't need residents to bring in nightlife. It happens naturally from downtown being the centre of the city and a choice area to hang out. That has been how it always works in cities that don't have dead downtowns.

But define "healthy downtown". A centre of a city is not a given that it's the natural choice to gravitate to. Office towers by themselves for sure wouldn't attract people.

[niwell]

In fact residents can be the downfall of downtown entertainment, as can be seen in the entertainment district, where residents who just moved in are trying to kill downtown nightlife, because they want it to be quiet like the suburbs.


This is a bit misleading. A minority of residents expressed concern regarding how out of control parts of the Entertainment District had become. Which in turn was exaggerated by the local media looking for something to latch on to. And they did have some fair points. The area is a mess on weekends and IMO best avoided at all costs. The Ossington and Queen West moratoriums on new bars/restaurants (which due to a quirk in city zoning are treated identically) are a different beast altogether and were opposed by many local residents - including myself.



Anyway it is not like I said we should have no residents. I just think Toronto is not putting enough focus on employment. I think we have become obsessed with downtown residents as being the savour. Well they are not. Like everything you need a balance. And right now we are not balancing.

Niwell, I know employment has grown. But Toronto is far behind, even regionally. 40,000 jobs is nothing compared to what Toronto was adding before the 1990's. And in fact our downtown is just now hitting employment levels seen in 1989. This while the surrounding region has added hundreds of thousands of new jobs. The city just does not put enough focus on business development.

If you look at policy the city is in no way obsessed with residents in downtown. As I said, plenty of land is in fact reserved for future office needs. And recent policies allow for a host of new economic incentives for employment citywide. But what ends up getting built at any given time is driven primarily by economic forces, not policy. Right now a mixture of land values, interest rates, speculation and property tax rates dictate residential. And particularly high-end residential. This may not be the case in 5 years.

I'm well aware of the employment trends in the city dating back to 1983 and have worked with the data extensively. It sounds (and looks) dramatic when the 1989 peak and subsequent drop is revealed. But really, it doesn't tell the whole story. That was 21 years ago and the nature of employment distribution and economic geography have undergone a significant shift. It's quite normal for an office that employed 100 people then to achieve the same output with half the workforce. Results would be even more dramatic when taking into account manufacturing and warehousing spaces in the city's older employment districts.

[linum]

I lived in Toronto for 12 months ... I like the skyline over there.

[isaidso]

More condos or more offices? That depends on demand. When office demand grows, office space will be built. Right now, most of the development is residential, but so what? Downtown needs more people. Downtown Toronto may be dense by Canadian standards, but not by international standards.

There's been a marked increase in the number of people on the streets and its due to all the condos going up. Our downtown streets are far more vibrant and interesting today than they were just 10 years ago. I wouldn't mind a doubling or tripling of the downtown population.

More office towers/workers is always preferable, but why is this an either/or proposition? Both office towers and residential towers benefit the core.

[miketoronto]

There's been a marked increase in the number of people on the streets and its due to all the condos going up. Our downtown streets are far more vibrant and interesting today than they were just 10 years ago. I wouldn't mind a doubling or tripling of the downtown population.


Actually it has to be seen if it is downtown residents that are filling the streets or just people coming into downtown to enjoy the offerings.

In fact my friend who lives downtown made a very good comment.
The areas with tons of residents, are actually some of the deadest areas in the downtown.

Yonge-Dundas which has very little residents living near it, is always full no matter what time of day or night.
Downtown is busy because of the attractions it offers to all residents of the city and region. Downtown residents do not add much streetlife, as they are sitting in their living rooms just like many other people at night.

Anyway we can have residential and offices. But the balance has tipped way to far towards residential.

[J. Will]

What excites me most about this development is the 190,000 square feet of retail space it will have. This is in addition to well over 500,000 square feet of newly built retail space within a 1000-foot radius of the site. The fact that it will add a 75-story tower is just the icing on the cake.

[J. Will]

So despite the fact that the WORLD is in a global recession and its neighbor to the south was the catalyst for that recession, they are building condo towers in Toronto (I hope this isn't spec!)? Even if Canada or Toronto are faring well during the recession outside systematic factors can create market problems. Clearly this isn't a problem or they wouldn't be building this......I'm just a little surprised!

There are well over 100 highrises under construction in Toronto, the vast majority of the condos. I don't think the number of highrises under construction had dipped below 100 at any one time over the last five years. The recession has had almost no effect on new highrise construction in the region.

[J. Will]

This is what downtown is supposed to be.

From the City of Buffalo.


"Working Downtown means office and other commercial space is high quality, in demand, and supports sustained job growth to maintain Downtown as the regional center, not only for government, but for finance, insurance, real estate, law, life sciences, and business incubation"

"Downtown is “one destination with many attractions” offering something for people of all ethnicities, incomes, interests, and lifestyles. It is user friendly for new and repeat visitors and hotels, restaurants, and entertainment and cultural venues are thriving."

"Downtown is a demand area for residence."

The fact that you are holding up downtown Buffalo as something downtown Toronto should emulate is comical mike.

[PFloyd]

In a healthy downtown you don't need residents to bring in nightlife. It happens naturally from downtown being the centre of the city and a choice area to hang out. That has been how it always works in cities that don't have dead downtowns.


In fact residents can be the downfall of downtown entertainment, as can be seen in the entertainment district, where residents who just moved in are trying to kill downtown nightlife, because they want it to be quiet like the suburbs.
Downtown is not about being quiet. And when you bring in a lot of residents to areas that do have entertainment, it can cause problems.


Anyway it is not like I said we should have no residents. I just think Toronto is not putting enough focus on employment. I think we have become obsessed with downtown residents as being the savour. Well they are not. Like everything you need a balance. And right now we are not balancing.

Niwell, I know employment has grown. But Toronto is far behind, even regionally. 40,000 jobs is nothing compared to what Toronto was adding before the 1990's. And in fact our downtown is just now hitting employment levels seen in 1989. This while the surrounding region has added hundreds of thousands of new jobs. The city just does not put enough focus on business development.

Mike:
Your rationale of how healthy cities work is so flawed on so many fronts, it is unbelievable your are studying urban planning at Ryerson. it makes me wonder about that program. I think you should ask for your money back, and switch careers.

[miketoronto]

PFloyd I don't see you studying urban planning, so don't comment on my credentials.

What you are saying to me, is what people said to people who questioned tearing down Cabbagetown for apartment towers.

I will stand by my view that downtown is not developing enough workplaces, etc. I may use radial ideas to get the point across, but I don't see a problem with that.

You are obviously someone who jumps on the bandwagon of the latest planning fad, which happens to be downtown residential at the moment.

I never said residential downtown was bad. I just said we need more commercial built at the same time.
People like you PFloyd scream about mixed use. Well having nothing but condos going up is not mixed use.

[miketoronto]

Mike:
Your rationale of how healthy cities work is so flawed on so many fronts, it is unbelievable your are studying urban planning at Ryerson. it makes me wonder about that program. I think you should ask for your money back, and switch careers.

I never knew wanting downtown to remain the business and cultural centre of the region was flawed. Or wanting jobs in a transit friendly area was flawed. Or wanting my city to have a healthy tax base, which means having business in it, to be flawed.
My ideas are far from flawed. They are the ideas progressive cities are promoting.

[J. Will]

mike, two large new office towers have been completed downtown in the last year, and another one is currently under construction. There's plenty of office space being built downtown.

[miketoronto]

The fact that you are holding up downtown Buffalo as something downtown Toronto should emulate is comical mike.

I am holding up the report Buffalo has done on their downtown. It happens to be a very good report and a great blueprint for downtown growth. Toronto has no plan like this. Not even a plan for a downtown wide design plan, etc.
Laugh all you want, but cities like Buffalo are doing some things right. And these reports are great.

[bob1954]

"MIKETORONTO": Are you aware that in Chicago's central neighborhoods (in an around Downtown), that there are thousands of people that live DT or close-in areas and commute for work in the 'Burbs! I'd be willing to bet 15%+ of the population in those areas "reverse-commute".... Chicago also has about 3 times the office space DT Toronto has. Toronto's doing pretty well from what I've seen!

[Dr Nevergold]

Toronto has some development plans.
http://www.toronto.ca/planning/grow.htm


Toronto may have 450,000 downtown workers, and Chicago may have some 600,000, but it isn't like they are that far apart. Not that it matters, I think the condo developments add a great deal to the city.

[someone123]

Ugh, yes. That article is painful.

[vid]

Mike:
Your rationale of how healthy cities work is so flawed on so many fronts, it is unbelievable your are studying urban planning at Ryerson. it makes me wonder about that program. I think you should ask for your money back, and switch careers.

When I was in high school and we had the university open house nights, a lot of the other universities put down Ryerson. It doesn't (or at least didn't have at the time) a very good reputation, for some reason. It's a small university, though. They tend to get shit on a lot.

[MolsonExport]

Ryerson is actually a big university nowadays. But it is ranked third in a three-university city (OK, there is OUIT, but that is beneath contempt), way behind York, and way, way behind UofT.

Like my alma matter (which is actually quite well thought of....certainly for the business school) of Concordia...behind McGill, UofM, but way ahead of the middling UQAM.

In my capacity as a prof, Ryerson is looked upon rather poorly, but not as much as Trent ("If you're bent, you can get into Trent"), UofWindsor ("University of last chance"), and Brock ("A Crock of____"). These are not my opinions; just some that I have heard from faculty in the building.

[vid]

What about Lakehead?

That university thing was just before OUIT opened, they were all "It's Ontario's newest university!" and gave us CD-Roms about it, which naturally were used as frisbees. The people that started OUIT were from Thunder Bay, btw.

[WhipperSnapper]

Ryerson has a decent reputation in Toronto and the urban planning program is quite well regarded.

[WhipperSnapper]

I never knew wanting downtown to remain the business and cultural centre of the region was flawed. Or wanting jobs in a transit friendly area was flawed. Or wanting my city to have a healthy tax base, which means having business in it, to be flawed.
My ideas are far from flawed. They are the ideas progressive cities are promoting.

Don't you get it? You're being totally ridiculous with your constant hand picking of select projects and totally ignoring the bigger picture to prove your insane notions. The downtown has added millions of square feet of employment space over the past few years. Heck, Sick Kids just broke ground the other day on a 600,000 square foot downtown research facility. Aura, itself, includes a large chunk of commercial space.

For pete's sake, Stop bending the truth to suit your needs!

[M II A II R II K]

Maybe he has some sort of ratio that should apply between commercial and residential space downtown.

[WhipperSnapper]

I think it's quite clear his ratio would be very low on the residential ... mostly commercial and institutional or, a.k.a ... a boring 9 to 5 downtown.

[samne]

Tor-buff-chester!

[MolsonExport]

Depending on the faculty, Lakehead is not thought of too poorly. Ditto for Laurentian.

Ryerson is where many folks that were denied tenure at York/UofT end up, in my understanding.

[M II A II R II K]

I think it's quite clear his ratio would be very low on the residential ... mostly commercial and institutional or, a.k.a ... a boring 9 to 5 downtown.

Maybe a better question should be what factors bring people downtown in their free time and what would detract from it. Too much of a concentration of office space in one area would for sure do that.

[miketoronto]

I think it's quite clear his ratio would be very low on the residential ... mostly commercial and institutional or, a.k.a ... a boring 9 to 5 downtown.

And when has Toronto's downtown ever been dead at night? A downtown includes all different things from business to retail, to entertainment, and institutional uses.

In fact, who says condos make downtown more exciting? Without the retail, entertainment, and other attractions which draw people in, downtown would not be that busy, if it relied on downtown residents alone.

It is not like I said that we should not build residential. I am just saying that we need more of the non residential. I don't see what the big deal is with that.

[M II A II R II K]

It is not like I said that we should not build residential. I am just saying that we need more of the none residential. I don't see what the big deal is with that.

The new highrises downtown are mostly residential, but to house many people of course. But does the other stuff have to be highrise also to make an impact on attracting people? Or I suppose the highrise residentials drown them out.

[blackjagger]

what is OUIT??

[miketoronto]

Maybe a better question should be what factors bring people downtown in their free time and what would detract from it. Too much of a concentration of office space in one area would for sure do that.

Not really. Bloor Street has one of the most heavy concentrations of office space. Yet it is busy at all times and all days of the week, for the most part. And that is due to the fact that the base of the office towers have retail, restaurants, and other attractions that draw people in.

[M II A II R II K]

Then residential towers can have that at their base, which many smaller residential projects do, and solve the problem.

[vid]

what is OUIT??

UOIT (University of Ontario Institute of Technology). I mixed up the two first letters.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Ontario_Institute_of_Technology

It's a horrible name. Durham Region was Ontario District in the 1800s which is probably why they chose it.

[niwell]

Not really. Bloor Street has one of the most heavy concentrations of office space. Yet it is busy at all times and all days of the week, for the most part. And that is due to the fact that the base of the office towers have retail, restaurants, and other attractions that draw people in.


Keep in mind that the street level treatment of office towers on Bloor are quite different from those in the heart of the financial district. Reflected by the fact that office space up there is quite a bit different in nature, though still fairly desirable. At ground level there's a retail base stemming from the previous nature of businesses on Bloor, as opposed to the financial district where corporate lobbies and plazas are the name of the game. The latter is pretty dead off business hours - there's not a lot going on in the plaza of the TD Centre on Friday night.

[Gerrard]

Depending on the faculty, Lakehead is not thought of too poorly. Ditto for Laurentian.

Ryerson is where many folks that were denied tenure at York/UofT end up, in my understanding.

True. We used to call it "Rye High". But it does have a pretty good MBA program, if that's your thing.

[relnahe]

yeah, maybe go move to rochester. i hear it's pretty cutting edge, and there is none of this 75-storey condo tower bullshit going on.

AHAHAHA!!!! Agreed! Please don't tell Mike to go to Rochester though. We already have enough smug, humorless people here.

[miketoronto]

Keep in mind that the street level treatment of office towers on Bloor are quite different from those in the heart of the financial district. Reflected by the fact that office space up there is quite a bit different in nature, though still fairly desirable. At ground level there's a retail base stemming from the previous nature of businesses on Bloor, as opposed to the financial district where corporate lobbies and plazas are the name of the game. The latter is pretty dead off business hours - there's not a lot going on in the plaza of the TD Centre on Friday night.

Good point Niwell. The financial district is a small part of the downtown, and functions for its purpose. That being said, there is no reason new buildings could not include ground level retail space like on Bloor.

I would also like to comment on the financial district, because where there are destination offerings, the financial district is busy at night. I used to work in BCE PLACE during college, and the restaurants there are such a draw, that people are down there till as late as 3am in the morning. And from interacting with customers, a lot came from the suburbs.
If there is something unique and interesting like BCE Place, than a financial district can have some life. So I would not write off the FD totally. Things can be done to make it a little more busy off hours. There are thousands of people who stroll through the FD on off hours and weekends to get to other areas of downtown. There is a latent demand to capture some of those people into business down there. And some business are doing that such as Harry Rosen which is now open on Saturday's in First Canadian Place.

[miketoronto]

Don't you get it? You're being totally ridiculous with your constant hand picking of select projects and totally ignoring the bigger picture to prove your insane notions. The downtown has added millions of square feet of employment space over the past few years. Heck, Sick Kids just broke ground the other day on a 600,000 square foot downtown research facility. Aura, itself, includes a large chunk of commercial space.
For pete's sake, Stop bending the truth to suit your needs!

It is not bending the truth. The key words you said was "past couple years". For almost 20 years downtown Toronto sat stagnet in the commercial sense, while the 905 has built millions upon millions upon millions of new office space. Including thousands and thousands of new jobs. This at the same time as company after company has either transfered some or all of their workers out of the downtown core to auto centric suburban office parks(at I might add the objection of many of their workers).

The recent growth in downtown commercial is a good sign, but the downtown still has to watch it's step.

Until the past couple years, all downtown Toronto has seen is condo, after condo tower. And all I have ever said is the balance needs to be restored.

And to be honest, I do sometimes question putting condos in such busy metropolitan spaces like Yonge & Gerrard. Some areas that are so busy like those areas, are maybe better as commercial. Because residents just get obsessed with killing the action because it is too much noise, etc for them.
The eastern downtown residential areas are great. But I do question the need for residential right in the heart of Yonge. I could just see now those very condo dwellers trying to close down some of the retail business on that stretch of Yonge, because they don't fit in with the clean suburban sanitized downtown that most new condo dwellers want. And that is an issue that other cities like Chicago are facing, with new downtown dwellers trying to kill what makes the downtown so exciting, because it means they can't pretend they are in the quiet suburbs.

[miketoronto]

AHAHAHA!!!! Agreed! Please don't tell Mike to go to Rochester though. We already have enough smug, humorless people here.

I would love to know how calling for a balance in development is being smug?

[MonkeyRonin]

And to be honest, I do sometimes question putting condos in such busy metropolitan spaces like Yonge & Gerrard. Some areas that are so busy like those areas, are maybe better as commercial.

Once again, this is going to have 150,000 sqft. of retail, on a <50,000 sqft. site. If that doesn't add vibrancy and create jobs, then what would you suggest?

[min-chi-cbus]

There are well over 100 highrises under construction in Toronto, the vast majority of the condos. I don't think the number of highrises under construction had dipped below 100 at any one time over the last five years. The recession has had almost no effect on new highrise construction in the region.

Sorry, I just got back to this....

My point is that systematic market factors (like the DJIA plunging 1000 pts on a typo or Greece's economy collapsing) can drive local demand just as much as idiosyncratic factors can. If the cost of financing the construction of these towers all of the sudden doubles because banks can't afford to take the risk on loans the way they use to, how many of those 100+ towers a.) go up, or b.) fill up? This is what is happening in the U.S. right now, and the worst probably isn't over. Just a heads up....I'm not prognosticating any kind of Canadian or Toronto failure.