Future Canadian Skylines

[koops65]

A flight down Bay street:

• Video Link

[Gresto]

Nice. But by the time all that comes to fruition, we'll all be grey-whiskered or dead.

[J.OT13]

Future CBD skyline, Ottawa. The two black towers (27 fl) are topped-out. The two shorter blue towers are u/c (23 and 29 fl). The taller blue tower (35 fl) is approved.

Originally Posted by UrbOttawa

I was curious about how this would look from different views so I modelled it up and added it to google earth. Heights and footprints are fairly accurate. It's quite prominent from a lot of different views which is great to see, the claridge buildings fortunately don't obscure it too much.

[steveve]

Downtown Toronto Development:

[JHikka]

Future Model Toronto
@FutureModelTO
Updated look at proposed development along Eglinton Ave East in Scarborough’s Golden Mile neighbourhood. The area will be served by five transit stops along the future Eglinton Crosstown LRT.


https://twitter.com/FutureModelTO/st...673730/photo/1

[WhipperSnapper]

much appreciated seeing it all in one massing model

[MonkeyRonin]

That's gonna be one lopsided canyon!

[niwell]

That's a... lot of development. Linear corridors of highrises next to either houses or industrial warehouses is becoming a GTA signature.

Didn't notice the downtown Toronto proposal map posted by steveve above till now - cool graphic but the perspective on that is giving me a headache!

[J.OT13]

Ottawa-Gatineau 2018 vs impact Zibi may have on the skyline.

Core by harley613, on Flickr

block206 by harley613, on Flickr

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally Posted by MonkeyRonin

That's gonna be one lopsided canyon!

Only a matter of time until something is submitted to replace the big box development on Lebovic south of Eglinton. The TD data centre at the east end is prime too. I hope the water tower doesn't get encapsulated with development. The prison may make things interesting.

hmm Bury the hydro corridor and build a wide boulevard with skyscrapers on each side

[Gresto]

Lovely to see a skyscraper thread bumped again. Nobody posts much anymore in the 50-tallest-proposals or top-10-construction threads.

Politics and world events are much more important than this nonsense, but we need our frivolous amusements nourished too.

[craner]

Originally Posted by MonkeyRonin

That's gonna be one lopsided canyon!

More like a cliff.

[Innsertnamehere]

Originally Posted by MonkeyRonin

That's gonna be one lopsided canyon!

highlighting the ridiculousness of the City's employment land policies yet again.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by Innsertnamehere

highlighting the ridiculousness of the City's employment land policies yet again.

The land on the south side of the street blocked from redevelopment by city policies? That is pretty bizarre...

[Innsertnamehere]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

The land on the south side of the street blocked from redevelopment by city policies? That is pretty bizarre...

not blocked from development per se - just reserved for employment uses only. So basically developers can only build office blocks, and shocker, there isn't demand for office blocks in suburban Scarborough which has like a 20% office vacancy rate right now.

The city in their secondary plan process show rows of mid-rise office blocks along the south side of Eglinton in some sort of delusion that they will actually materialize simply because the land has been "protected" for them.

There is a big thing at the city that they have to "protect" employment lands at all costs, resulting in some pretty insane situations, including this one. The other one was East Harbour as originally proposed with 10,000,000sf of office space with not a single residential unit, creating an instant office district which would empty out at 5pm every day. Thank god the Province intervened there and is issuing a ministers zoning order allowing residential uses, much to the city's chagrin.

The idea of protecting employment lands in Toronto is one of some merit, but the city takes it way too far. It's only an issue in the first place as the city also protects residential areas too much, which are far more desirable locations for buyers. No developer would be trying to build residential in industrial areas if they could build in residential areas instead.

[Nouvellecosse]

^^ That's interesting. Perhaps they'll manage to attract more commercial uses after the completion of the line and the residential developments. Although I'm guessing office space on a single rail line that is always going to have limited appeal. Even at Yonge and Bloor with two subway lines basically all the development in the last several decades has been residential. The last office tower was in what, the 70s or 80s?

Although East Harbour might actually have a change once there's a GO RER stop.

[WhipperSnapper]

We're building all these insta neighbourhoods with millions of square feet of residential with a little bit of retail/ commercial space thrown in because their isn't any current demand for space. I do think the city has a bit of the rental replacement policy when it comes to employment lands given how much office space has been lost to residential however, I don't see anything wrong leaving these blocks free of residential main usage throughout the course of the 30 year build out and see what transpires. Honestly, I don't think selling a midrise, 200 unit office condominium with 100,000 square feet a big huddle. There's more value in residential. I find it interesting how much more common it is for a condo tower to have a floor of retail plus one or two floors of commercial above in Canadian cities compared to Toronto giving the absolute gargantuan scale of Toronto's condo towers.

I totally disagree developers aren't attracted to the large parcels brownfield/industrial areas offer than having to assemble properties for intensification in residential areas. Of course, a big part of the attraction is also the freedom of any existing context. As an aside, Toronto/Ontario putting more and more precedence on building as many units as possible to meet growth and supply over neighbourhood context is unlikely to make the city more pleasant for living.

[niwell]

The problem is, once employment lands are developed for residential use, they're essentially gone forever. Developers would *much* rather build highrise communities on former light industrial lands then in residential neighbourhoods if given the option. Barring severe contamination concerns it's much easier and cheaper.

And while office uses are allowed in employment lands they are also intended for industrial uses. Things that still do require a lot of space to do. I'm not opposed to keeping them, though some are already so compromised by retail uses it's probably not worth it. The tricky part is the fear of setting precedents.

[Innsertnamehere]

Originally Posted by niwell

The problem is, once employment lands are developed for residential use, they're essentially gone forever. Developers would *much* rather build highrise communities on former light industrial lands then in residential neighbourhoods if given the option. Barring severe contamination concerns it's much easier and cheaper.

And while office uses are allowed in employment lands they are also intended for industrial uses. Things that still do require a lot of space to do. I'm not opposed to keeping them, though some are already so compromised by retail uses it's probably not worth it. The tricky part is the fear of setting precedents.

industrial uses are important, but not immediately beside a new light rail line.

Precedent is a concern the city loves, but converting lands immediately beside an LRT is a *good* precedent. Every conversion request has to stand on it's own merit.

I'd be supportive of ensuring adequate employment spaces remaining on the lands - allowing conversion with significant mixed use elements remaining is fine. Let developers build residential as long as they provide so much office and commercial space still.

The heights proposed by developers here are generally pretty ridiculous and unnecessary, but in a way it has to make up for what is effectively 0 density on the south side of Eglinton.

A much better plan for the Golden Mile would have been to allow employment conversions on the south side of the street and to spread the density around a bit more in 20-something storey towers and mid-rises.

The city also views employment areas as key to supporting the City's employment growth, but the reality is that almost no employment growth has occurred in the City's employment lands over the last 10-15 years. Almost all of it has occurred in mixed-use areas, particularly downtown. Employment lands largely aren't declining, and there has been a new rush of value for industrial lands due to shortages of industrial space in the GTA, but that doesn't mean single-storey industrial buildings with surface parking and open storage areas is the best use beside a multi-billion dollar LRT line.

The harsh protection of employment areas also follows that historical pattern of segregating uses that flies in the face of most modern planning principles, which is partly why I'm so surprised the city remains so staunchly supportive of it. There are ways to protect employment space through conversions while allowing a wider range of uses.

[WhipperSnapper]

Many of the one storey industrial buildings are affordable places for small businesses (on top of the car dealerships and big box stores)


One storey warehouses don't make sense over the longer term but, there is no pressing matter to redesignate simply for the purpose to redevelopment right away just because a new lrt line has been built through the neighbourhood. That's pursuant to not being enough lrt lines built or planned.

Keeping these lands limited to employment is not a means to pile on the residential densities on the north side. It infers zoning by quota