My main apprehension with that project is how odd the historic buildings look as a podium. I'm not sure such modest buildings work as podium for such a large, elaborate highrise. They'd be lovely as part of a restored street front, particularly outside of downtown. Or wedged between two taller buildings downtown (although not quite that tall).

I'm not really worried about immigrants or international students, etc. because anyone wealthy enough to buy a brand new condo in a prime location is bringing in enough money to carry their own weight. And everything is a trade off, so I'm not too worried about unit size/density for their sake. People choosing to live right downtown on the main drag value location/convenience over other factors so I'm sure they'll probably be quite happy with it.

You mean 91 highrises over 150m, right?

You are believer that the best way to get out of the housing affordability crisis is to build a helluva lot more of everything at any cost so I can't fault you it's all good as long as they can afford an overpriced closet for their stay in Toronto. Ever checked out a a new Toronto condo development on realtor.ca? Minimum two thirds of the condos are put up for rent. Afford is $4000 rent achieved by subdividing it as much as needed than one wealthy person renting a tiny studio one bedroom

Correct.

https://skyscraperpage.com/diagrams/?searchID=103430887

These will be joining very soon

https://skyscraperpage.com/diagrams/?searchID=103430889

Maverick, Theatre District, 55 Mercer, 19 Duncan not long after

https://skyscraperpage.com/diagrams/?searchID=103430901

That adds up to 99... Still a toss-up as to which building will be #100.

Theatre District is x2

More of everything at any cost? I think I have fairly big limits of what I consider acceptable to build. For instance, I completely rule out new greenfield sprawl (for the moment) which was the primary way most cities grew in NA for decades. Yes it will eventually be necessary again as the metro increases density but that's a ways off. I also am I big proponent of historic preservation. But that tends to be limited to the buildings themselves rather than neighbouring sites. And I'm probably not as rigid as some people in that regard.

But yes, I do believe the best way out of an affordability crisis resulting from a shortage of units is to supply more units.

Yeah, so that makes it a toss-up between Maverick, Theatre District, 55 Mercer and 19 Duncan...

When I was a kid clubbing in the entertainment district it was all low slung warehouses...

Look now, it's a big difference. A city in it's own right

https://urbantoronto.ca/forum/attach...22-png.518407/

^ Not sure about the pale pink lighting effect on that one as it's giving me a touch of 70s era Vegas tacky. But the design is great otherwise.

You're flat out wrong to say the affordability crisis is a result of a shortage of units. In either case, affordability and the shortage of housing is self inflicted lunacy.

I'm inferring that aformentioned development that could lease for $4000 a month in the timeframe it takes to complete a 85 storey proposal will fill up with content families or conversion of single family homes without much consideration towards context that your ideals do not extend much further beyond land use efficiency to house more people withing the urban boundaries. The majority of people desire more than a shoebox in a skyscraper with a view of another shoebox filled skyscraper. Immigrants looking to improve their lives spending every dime they have to come to Canada and realize that the standard of living for them is a shoebox in the sky are typically not going to be very happy. They are just stuck in Canada.

Looks that way. I can't say that there aren't other buildings topped out

Also, my standards for completion includes the removal of construction hoists and they can linger. They are sneaky buggers in urbantoronto updates.

Obviously I don't want to turn this into the housing thread and it's clear most people have made up their minds on the issue and won't be changing them anytime soon. But I don't think I'm wrong at all. We didn't have a housing affordability crisis in Halifax until we started seeing much higher rates of growth. And the least affordable housing markets in Canada have generally been the ones with the highest growth rates and the most difficulty keeping up with them. And it's been that way for awhile now. Yes there's variety of contributing factors but that's clearly the biggest. Of course I realize most people tend to blame the factors they're already most primed to be critical of. People who don't like investors are likeliest to blame investors. Those who don't like developers are likeliest to blame developers. Same for immigrants, the government, anti-sprawl measures, and so on. But I try to avoid that as difficult as it can be.

Every large and successful city has some very small and expensive units in the most prime spots of the city centre. No one is forcing newcomers - or anyone else for that matter - to chose to live in the most prime, premium parts of downtown. That's why there are huge immigrant populations all across the metro area including way out in Brampton, Markham, etc. Downtown and the handful of highrise nodes where such tall projects are built are a small portion of the metro area so if some - or even all - immigrants don't want to live there it doesn't have much bearing on the country's quality of life overall. You're welcome to disagree of course and I won't hold it against you.

The main thing I was correcting was the idea that what I want to see built is "more of everything at any cost" when I'm just as discriminating about what I want built as you or anyone else. I just have different priorities or perhaps values than you. The metro areas I consider the most vibrant, attractive and charismatic tend to be denser. And greater density also happens to be more efficient. I'm sure most people can recognize that this type of hyperbole (ie. everything at any cost) is a common rhetorical tactic meant to satirize positions they don't agree with rather than to accurately represent the position. But I just wanted to be sure in case there was any confusion.

I can accept that there's a market for tiny units in the centre of Toronto, but 4 elevators for 600+ units is ridiculous. Most people I know who live in highrise condos deal with elevator maintenance issues constantly and that doesn't leave a lot of leeway.

^ Yes that's true. I once lived in an 8 story, 125 unit building that had 2 elevators. That's about one elevator for about 62 units compared to one for 150 units. And that was in a context where the stairs were much more of an alternative lol.

I lived in a 24-storey, ~288 unit 1960s slab tower with 3 elevators (96 units/elevator) for a few years, and that wasn't great. When it takes 5-10 minutes just to get outside (and in many of these buildings it can take even longer as one or more elevators often seem to be out of service) it can feel quite isolating - even though you're in the centre of the city.

Here's a funny proposal: a 4-tower development ranging from 40-60 storeys on a greenfield site in Brampton. It's near a shopping centre and will be close to a future LRT stop, but that's about it.

https://cdn.skyrisecities.com/sites/...59-165064.jpeg

https://cdn.skyrisecities.com/sites/...59-165066.jpeg

https://urbantoronto.ca/news/2023/11...ario-lrt.54459


Urban planning (or lackthereof) in the GTA is truly bizarre sometimes.

the Brampton development will never happen. I can almost put money on that.

I quite like the pink, it's giving me more of an 80's Chicago vibe. But these are LED's so they could be any colour I suppose. Unless it's like Aura with one colour and burnt out sections. God Aura sucks.

and there's three more vacant blocks beside the quad of 40 to 60 storey towers

Maybe not 60 storeys. My impression is Brampton developers have been pretty aggressive building up around the few rail transit connections in the city.