Canada's 10 Tallest U/C - Page 338

gunnar777 · #**6741** Posted **May 20, 2019, 9:25 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper

I meant the built form. There will be roughly 150,000 people per square kilometre living here in addition to those visiting (There's still a hotel planned?)and the people employed there. You will see people and alot of them during rush periods.

The trouble with stupid comments like this one is that they assume that the city is static and has never absorbed intense growth before. If it were up to people with these notions, Toronto would be pastoral.

Nouvellecosse · #**6742** Posted **May 20, 2019, 1:22 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by gunnar777

The trouble with stupid comments like this one is that they assume that the city is static and has never absorbed intense growth before. If it were up to people with these notions, Toronto would be pastoral.

The trouble with stupid comments like this one is that they try to force the argument into a a false binary. It first assumes that all superficially similar sounding arguments across varying times and contexts are in fact the same argument inspired by the same mindset or motive. Then it concludes that since other people were wrong to oppose other density increases in the past, it's therefore wrong for anyone to oppose any increase in the present. In other words, there's no such thing as considering each case individually with different increases potentially being better or worse. No possibility that it was wrong to oppose increase A and B while correct to oppose increase C. Since the only choices are "all or nothing" and nothing is too little (pastoral, aka reductio ad absurdum) the only remaining option is "all".

The correct approach would be to explain why you think this increase in density is beneficial and address the apprehensions that others might have. For example, "While you may be concerned that the common spaces will be too crowded, if they're well designed and connected to adjacent public areas this can be avoided. Development X in city Y is a good example" You might need to ask for details on the specific issues they have with it but that's all part of productive discussion.

gunnar777 · #**6743** Posted **May 20, 2019, 6:58 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

The trouble with stupid comments like this one is that they try to force the argument into a a false binary. It first assumes that all superficially similar sounding arguments across varying times and contexts are in fact the same argument inspired by the same mindset or motive. Then it concludes that since other people were wrong to oppose other density increases in the past, it's therefore wrong for anyone to oppose any increase in the present. In other words, there's no such thing as considering each case individually with different increases potentially being better or worse. No possibility that it was wrong to oppose increase A and B while correct to oppose increase C. Since the only choices are "all or nothing" and nothing is too little (pastoral, aka reductio ad absurdum) the only remaining option is "all".

The correct approach would be to explain why you think this increase in density is beneficial and address the apprehensions that others might have. For example, "While you may be concerned that the common spaces will be too crowded, if they're well designed and connected to adjacent public areas this can be avoided. Development X in city Y is a good example" You might need to ask for details on the specific issues they have with it but that's all part of productive discussion.

Ah I didn't realize that you're the arbiter of this forum.

In any case, Whippersnapper perpetually makes the same argument regardless of context: conservatism = good, growth = bad. Yet there aren't many parts of the country where such an increase in density is more justified than in this proposal. Centrally-located in the economic hub of the country, within walking distance to Union Station and the financial district, not to mention every amenity one could need, parks, libraries and schools. Yes, more of the latter will be needed, but if intense growth isn't warranted here, then it isn't warranted anywhere.

Chadillaccc · #**6744** Posted **May 21, 2019, 4:28 PM**

She's a stunner.

By SurrealPlaces on SRC

TorontoDrew · #**6745** Posted **May 21, 2019, 4:31 PM**

What do we think, the crane will be down by the end of June?

Chadillaccc · #**6746** Posted **May 21, 2019, 4:43 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by TorontoDrew

What do we think, the crane will be down by the end of June?

I believe the crane is coming down now, or came down last week. The photo is about a week old.

WhipperSnapper · #**6747** Posted **May 21, 2019, 4:59 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by gunnar777

The trouble with stupid comments like this one is that they assume that the city is static and has never absorbed intense growth before. If it were up to people with these notions, Toronto would be pastoral.

The conversation was about the design of the community (a.k.a. built form) It wasn't about "growth" at all. You should at least confirm that you're on subject before pointing a snotty comment.

WhipperSnapper · #**6748** Posted **May 21, 2019, 5:31 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by gunnar777

Ah I didn't realize that you're the arbiter of this forum.

In any case, Whippersnapper perpetually makes the same argument regardless of context: conservatism = good, growth = bad. Yet there aren't many parts of the country where such an increase in density is more justified than in this proposal. Centrally-located in the economic hub of the country, within walking distance to Union Station and the financial district, not to mention every amenity one could need, parks, libraries and schools. Yes, more of the latter will be needed, but if intense growth isn't warranted here, then it isn't warranted anywhere.

I perpetually make the argument because I fully agree we are overbuilding at unprecedented densities for the developed world. Toronto is in the minority among urban centres where density isn't strictly capped and the highest of those caps tend to be half of the FSI we build here. I don't feel these densities are ever warranted because of the associated costs and Canada's competitive edge beyond resource extraction rests on affordability. Plus 15s were included as the sidewalk capacity was deemed to be not enough. That makes sense to you?

It's a balancing act where we've gone far and beyond. These increased densities are making things a helluva lot more expensive than cheaper. Space is at an extreme premium for infrastructure, schools, amenities, etc. Just the space occupied by a school will cost in the 8 figures to own or a million to rent per year. That doesn't include building the school. The cityplace school took 20 years to finance and the site has been set aside since land was a fraction of the costs it is now. There's an apparent wait list and it's not completed.

You can disagree respectfully instead of disparaging me as some NIMBY. Even NIMBYs make good points that lead to better developments. Thankfully, not everyone is as quick to label as you are.

WhipperSnapper · #**6749** Posted **May 21, 2019, 5:51 PM**

I've been labeled so many things for not seeing value in plopping skyscrapers in established low rise areas effectively destroying them all for the sake of density. This applies to height as well. IMO, There's a lot of cheerleading going on but, to truly appreciate height or density is to understand the good with the bad and that sometimes the bad outweighs the good. I'm a Skywalker. The absolute attitude that if you're not for skyscrapers you are against skyscrapers is what the Sith worship. The more bad that gets shoved down people's throats, the more opposed they become of them. It's also about the survival of our passion.

TorontoDrew · #**6750** Posted **May 21, 2019, 6:05 PM**

The foundation is taking shape at the One.
Taken by: Benito
@ urbantoronto.ca

Nouvellecosse · #**6751** Posted **May 21, 2019, 10:17 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by gunnar777

Ah I didn't realize that you're the arbiter of this forum.

In any case, Whippersnapper perpetually makes the same argument regardless of context: conservatism = good, growth = bad. Yet there aren't many parts of the country where such an increase in density is more justified than in this proposal. Centrally-located in the economic hub of the country, within walking distance to Union Station and the financial district, not to mention every amenity one could need, parks, libraries and schools. Yes, more of the latter will be needed, but if intense growth isn't warranted here, then it isn't warranted anywhere.

The arbiter? Whether an argument is sound or fallacious isn't arbitrary. And I think you should pay closer attention if you think he's anti-growth as i've never heard him argue that growth is bad. I often see him make the case that there is too much density for a particular site based on the infrastructure, character, shadowing dynamics, etc. of an area which I sometimes I agree with and sometimes I'm more skeptical of. But fortunately he can speak for himself.

TorontoDrew · #**6752** Posted **May 22, 2019, 2:06 PM**

CIBC starting to peak above its neighbours.

Untitled by Franklin McKay, on Flickr

Chadillaccc · #**6753** Posted **May 22, 2019, 2:28 PM**

https://twitter.com/WorkAbove

WhipperSnapper · #**6754** Posted **May 22, 2019, 11:55 PM**

Great aerial.

What a waste of space on 8th Avenue. Save the facades. Tear down the rest for towers like YSL in Toronto. LOL

Chadillaccc · #**6755** Posted **May 23, 2019, 12:16 AM**

Yikes. Jesus Christ. I'm sure you were kidding, I'd much rather it stay the way it is thank you

I imagine some of the buildings on the 7th Ave side will be redeveloped, but not any time soon. Telus Sky will have certainly raised the property values in the area.

DLLB · #**6756** Posted **May 23, 2019, 1:04 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chadillaccc

https://twitter.com/WorkAbove

WOW, what a great shot

osirisboy · #**6757** Posted **May 23, 2019, 1:40 AM**

What's the deal with the lot across the street? Looks like they started building and then stopped at grade

Chadillaccc · #**6758** Posted **May 23, 2019, 2:05 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by osirisboy

What's the deal with the lot across the street? Looks like they started building and then stopped at grade

Second phase of the Bow. They screwed the city over and never built it. Tore down a nice old hotel for it too. The deal was that the original facade would be restored with the new building. It's a temporary parklet for now.

This was the south face...

The side facing the Bow was to have a concave north face.

gunnar777 · #**6759** Posted **May 23, 2019, 2:36 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by gunnar777

Hmm, well I'll take the bait. One Bloor East is just wraparound balconies, all the way to the top. It's a crappy design for such a tall building. Without those balconies tacked on, I'm not sure there's much architecture left.

Quote:

Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper

I don't know what your point is. I think everyone hear understand OBE's architectural statement is through It's balconies. Suggesting there's nothing left once you strip them away is stupid and not because it's blatantly wrong. That's like removing a limb.

Quote:

Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper

You can disagree respectfully instead of disparaging me as some NIMBY. Even NIMBYs make good points that lead to better developments. Thankfully, not everyone is as quick to label as you are.

Ah so it's fine when you do it though

gunnar777 · #**6760** Posted **May 23, 2019, 2:40 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chadillaccc

Second phase of the Bow. They screwed the city over and never built it. Tore down a nice old hotel for it too. The deal was that the original facade would be restored with the new building. It's a temporary parklet for now.

This was the south face...

The side facing the Bow was to have a concave north face.

That would've been sweet. The Bow is very cool as is but the second phase would've been a fantastic addition.