This is more silly justification. Buyers and renters aren't developers or are vacancies anywhere near a buyers or renters market. Both parties are at the whim of developer and their products. The market already has too much emphasis over experts in planning policies after 9 years of Trudeau's open arm policies. While skyscraperpage concentrates on solving the housing crisis, it's only one of dozens of crises brought on by the number of people, temp and permanent piling in to our cities. Anyways, I can't think of a more dytopian potential letting developers, buyers and, sellers determining the shape of an urban area of millions. Dubai which is housing masterplans completely separated by high ways comes to mind or Houston with sprawl on an unfathomable scale and inner city intensifcation where every square inch of property is built over in ridiculous townhome configurations. The Oak Ridge Morraine would be tract housing if left to taxpayers.

Just because the 10,000s of absolutely soul crushing units built in Toronto and the rest of Canada have low vacancy doesn't mean the residents are happy living in them or, about raising children in non family apartments. IIRC, That Vancouver blogger that went viral over raising kids in a fashionable Coal Harbour one bedroom moved out for a house.

It's not a silly justification because there's nothing to justify. Allowing people to make their own decisions on where to live is a basic aspect of a free society that no amount of fear mongering over developers or investors can change. Developers do not develop products that they don't believe there is a market for, and investors don't invest in products they don't expect to get a return on. In both cases, there needs to be a final occupant interested in buying or renting the units for them to make money and those people are free to choose whether or not to live there.

That said, I don't see what relevance the latter part has here because I already explained why the development isn't bad from a planning perspective.The views and light levels would potentially affect the occupants of those units but has nothing to do with "shaping an urban area of millions"

But not everyone finds the units soul crushing. You're imposing your own response to certain housing types on other people who may or may not feel the same.

The best way to understand how many people feel about height and population density is by comparing it to winter. People in winter countries like Canada or Finland may love winter, but they may also hate or be indifferent to winter yet still choose to live there. When talking to people based in warmer climates I often encounter ones who talk about Canada as if winter is the only notable trait, or at least by far the most important trait. They say things like they could never live here because they would freeze their nads off or some such. And there are some people who genuinely dislike winter enough to leave. So for someone like that who is strongly averse to winter, I'm sure it's easy to assume that anyone who chooses to move to a cold climate must do so because they love winter and that anyone who doesn't would be miserable

But in reality, people get by in winter countries whether they actually like winter or not. A cold region may have a strong economy, abundant water or other natural resources, enjoyable culture, interesting/scenic landscapes, or many other features that could attract a person. And a housing unit in a dense development may have a great location, a competitive price compared to other options, have common amenities, or the unit itself could have features that a person wants. In other words winter and height/density are just not that important. You can say that winter is bad for people because we didn't evolve in cold climates and things like SAD exist and so therefore no one should be living here. But while both winter and height/density are important and they do affect people's lives, they just don't have the encompassing importance the way that some would suggest. As hard as it is for someone who despises winter or who despise height/density to understand, there are many people who see and just shrug without it having that big an impact on their opinion. And planning frameworks tend to recognize this.

I have never said once that everyone would find these soul crushing but, I have given data that these units and city planning policies average out as less than desirable places to live. There's record dissatisfaction among new Canadians living in Toronto and global residential planning policies would never allow widespread over 20 FSI without significant densities transfers. You found the 60 FSI Bloor Street supertall human filing cabinet too close to The One but still gave a thumbs up. You continue with the faith based narrative that people must like them and I'm the one imposing personal biases and not you. Next you'll say those planning polices are grounded in NIMBYism than based on quality of life studies.

Once again, you're completely off on another tangent. This isn't a question on height or population densities. This is a question of built densities and their architecture and logistics. Height is mainly for skyline enthusiasts or measuring dicks. Comparing population densities is a skewed understanding that more people will revitalise a shithole and not planning policy. Like the economy reliant on more and more people buying crap but, all that crap is also destroying the planets ecosystems.

I have not seen (and am not aware of) any plans to change the SkyTrain alignment in this area, but doing so would require a huge service disruption.

I believe the roadway design for that building area goes back to Concord's original plan in the 1980's. Surprising no changes have been made to it.

While traffic on the viaducts has been somewhat limited by lane closures and the reduction of people in the downtown core post-COVID, there would still need to be some measures to address access to/from downtown along Georgia and Dunsmuir Streets, and the current volume of traffic they experience. Even if the modal share decreases, the buses that currently use this route need to go somewhere and/or the new access incline needs to be mitigated somehow.

I haven't seen anything to address access to Citadel Mews or Rogers Arena post viaduct-removal.

First of all, you're the one who brought up height and population densities, not me. You literally said, "Height and population junkies may rejoice" as if that was the only thing anyone would appreciate about the proposal and i replied to set the record straight that this isn't true and explained some of the positives that have nothing to do that that.

Second, regarding the claim that, "I have given data that these units and city planning policies average out as less than desirable places to live." I have not seen any such data. It's certainly possible that new-comers are less satisfied now than in the past but I haven't seen any data showing that, if true, that housing density plays any significant role. There are plenty of other much more obvious possibilities including things like high cost of living, stagnant wages, low housing availability, traffic congestion, and increasing anti-immigration sentiments.

Third, you literally just said, "Just because the 10,000s of absolutely soul crushing units built in Toronto and the rest of Canada...". That was just today in the post I was responding it. So I'm not sure how you can forget it that quickly. Calling them absolutely soul-crushing clearly implies that "soul crushing" is an inherent trait of all these thousands of units themselves rather than just the reaction of some people who don't like them.

Forth, there's no such thing as "Global planning policies." The field of planning differs from country to country and even between regions within countries. For instance, when I interviewed a planner based in London Ont. as part of my planning program. I was surprised when he commented on how different planning is even in different parts of Canada while being significantly different than other countries he visited. And a central, perhaps most important, aspect of planning is recognizing context. We're taught not to make such absolute, universal statements like "this level of density is wrong". It's always a matter of considering the individual site and weighing the pros and cons based on many considerations.

And of course, the elephant in the room is that planners don't set density limits (or enact other policies for that matter). Planners make recommendations that governments accept or reject, fully or in part. And it isn't uncommon for governments not to accept all the recommendations. So there are many policies in place because that's what governments, typical municipal, have chosen to implement. Not because planners said those policies are good or necessary. So if a certain policy is common that doesn't necessarily mean planners have endorsed it, and if it's uncommon that doesn't mean planner oppose it. Well that's the case in Canada at least. But as I said, planning varies greatly around the world. In fact, one of the things we're warned about is that governments don't always follow advice and don't always enact good planning policies so we have to be prepared for that and not easily discouraged.

Also, simply observing something in real life and acknowledging what you've observed is not "faith" People do chose to buy and rent units in dense housing. I made it very clear in my prior post that I wasn't claiming everyone liked them. I was claiming that they chose to live in them rather than choosing not to. Perhaps because they like the unit or perhaps they thought it was the best option for some other reason. Hence my comparison to winter (which was very important btw).

Mooregate Way, 15-105 Mooregate Crescent, Kitchener

Anticipated construction start - Sept 2025

@ZEBuilder Nov 21, 2024
Model:
https://cdn.skyrisecities.com/forum/...92-png.613749/

Renderings:
105 Moorgate side (9 floor midrise)
https://cdn.skyrisecities.com/forum/...67-png.613750/

15 Moorgate side (16 floors)
https://cdn.skyrisecities.com/forum/...88-png.613751/

@Paclo Nov 21, 2024
Additional rendering:
https://cdn.skyrisecities.com/forum/...-0-jpg.613879/

The I dunno, 12th iteration of this now two decade old project(s)...

Century Park
https://cdn.prod.website-files.com/6...5697c_0003.png

https://cdn.prod.website-files.com/6...42bd7f_002.png

https://cdn.prod.website-files.com/6...d81bfc_003.jpg

https://www.weareplanworks.ca/projec...aster-planning

A nice little infill for a mature central hood in Edmonton.
https://taprootyeg.blob.core.windows...1-16-BLK99.jpg
https://edmonton.taproot.news/briefs...athcona-county

Initially posted by jollyburger in the Vancouver thread.

'McCarthy Plaza': 72 storeys, 258.4m

Proposed across the road from Concord Metrotown

For once Metrotown trying to be like Brentwood;)

I really like this angle.

https://storeys.com/media-library/a-...900&quality=90

Stature!

Looks good! Though this seems like fantasy render-ville, and I'm not convinced this will actually be built as rendered.

Vaughan has already built a better version of this lol

The details aren't revealed. Is it golden or is that reflecting the mood lighting? The only thing one can make out is a larger point tower mass which typically implies shitty floor plans.

That nondescript mid rise office the podium wraps around can't be long for the world. Fresh Street Market looks like a boring financial institution. Boy, all those stairs.

Still working on it:

https://vancouver.ca/home-property-d...pe-design.aspx

This proposal looks to follow the same policies that are in effect city-wide which is 80-foot tower separations, which is how Yaletown was built and it's not too different than Olympic Village at the ground level

Northeast False Creek Plan:

https://guidelines.vancouver.ca/poli...alse-creek.pdf

Only difference is the towers are taller now due to view cones were removed last year

Quoting me is extremely out of context but, in doing so you downplay taller as if it isn't a major change. Don't get me, wrong taller isn't inherently bad but, it's far from taller is better. We're in this era where taller reigns supreme. It isn't like 25 years when taller was extraordinary. Although I guess taller isn't associated to a number like 300 metres is a supertall so the threshold of taller rises as towers get taller. That's proven with 30 storeys being considered not that tall and/or a limit of 30 storey sacrificing density potential.