Donovan Vincent writes about new condo towers soon to pop up on Toronto’s railway lands in the GTA section of yesterday’s Toronto Star. Two towers (50- and 54-storeys high) are slated to neighbour the Air Canada Centre. A cluster of six (one 38-storeys, two 36-storeys and three 18-storeys) will be built west of Spadina Avenue, south of the rail corridor. They were all approved at Tuesday’s Toronto and East York community council meeting.
“If anyone has concern about the height of several new condos planned for Toronto’s railway lands…it’s too late, that issue has already been settled,†Vincent writes, referring to OMB battles that were fought years ago. “The best city councillors can do now is try to ensure things like pedestrian walkways, parks, schools and community centres are included in the projects.
Vincent, like so many other journalists, politicians and developers, approaches the topic of height as though it’s completely unrelated to walkways, parks, schools and transit. But plopping six high-rises down in a single area — high-rises that will likely house thousands of people — is like plopping a new neighbourhood into a neighbourhood that already exists.
Concerns over height aren’t always related to how a building looks, they’re related to how an influx of new neighbours will affect the community. How anyone at the OMB or City Hall can approve a building without knowing whether there are enough amenities to meet the needs of residents is mind blowing. It’s not fair to the people who already live in the neighbourhood and it’s not fair to the people who will eventually move in.
According to Vincent’s article, the new buildings by the ACC have been approved by council, and the densities (the number of people moving into the area) have been approved by the OMB, yet only now are the recommendations coming forward on walkways and parking spaces for cars, buses and bikes (and they’re just recommendations).
As for the six towers west of Spadina, Councillor Martin Silva “is heartened by the fact the new project includes places for a large park, schools, and a community centre.†He makes it sound as though it’s a gift, something extra the neighbourhood can enjoy. But this new park is not a frill; it’s a need. The new towers are what make these amenities especially necessary. The city shouldn’t have to beg for adequate public spaces for its residents, especially when a developer, selling thousands of new units, is the reason why that space is being created.
10 comments
So, all these towers are going up in locations where retail shopping isn’t within easy walking distance, yet they include no retail space of their own. Translation: residents will have to drive to get groceries, even though they live downtown. This is very sad.
I don’t think things are as bad as they make it out. For example condos near the Air Canada Centre are a short walk away from Union station for transit, the new Queens Quay Soabeys for food and the Toronto Islands for park land.
The ones by Spadina have the Spadina streetcar for transit, the Loblaws at Queens Quay and Bathurst they are going to build for food and thier own park. The development could revitialise the skywalk to the Rogers Centre, as many people will be walking to work.
And how about the 75 storey mega-tower proposed for Yonge and Gerrard? Horrible.
Darwin > I think the point Dale was making is that the planning for these developments come after the decision to build a condo is already made and the space used by the condo is decided upon. A development needs to be PART of the plan, not the sole reason for the plan. Its like buying a wedding dress but not having a groom to marry.
Yes. The City acts surprised every time a developer comes in with an application. But they won’t do any planning work in advance. This isn’t planning its reacting. City Staff won’t rezone land in advance as they are scared of the NIMBY ratepayers and want the developer to look like the bad guy. There is no plan that specifically locates where growth should occur in the City of Toronto.
The City also collects cash-in-lieu of parkland for most downtown developments but that money disappears into the City pot. You won’t see the City buying land to make new parks for the influx of population.
Yonge and Gerrard> A dominion nearby, a big supercentre to open in Maple Leaf Gardens. On the subway line. As long as the base doesn’t suck, seems like the ideal place for 75 floors.
Yes, Yonge and Gerrard does seem like a decent place for and 75 floor tower with a base that doesn’t suck. One of the problems, though, is that there’s a tower going there, plus there’s a bunch of others going up nearby. They seem to be approved on a case by case basis, but the city should really be considering these separate developments together. There may be enough park space for the Yonge and Gerrard dwellers (though, right now, I can’t think where) but is there enough space for them plus all the others that will be moving in elsewhere? Is anyone on council asking these questions?
If new park space is needed because of new residential developments in an area, I think developers should be required to pitch in. If there’s not enough park space for the number of people they want to sell units to, they shouldn’t be allowed to build as many units as they want.
Adam Vaughan brought up an interesting point in an interview once  everyone’s talking about the battles between kids and dogs in parks; perhaps the issue isn’t that we need to find a way for kid people and dog people to get along, the issue is that we don’t have enough space for them all to play. As more and more people cram into neighbourhoods that don’t have adequate park space, these sorts of tensions are only going to increase.
Le Corbusier would be pumped.
Le Corbusier would think the base of that other new College Park condo tower sucks.
Yes, a 75-floor monstrosity will really fit in with its surroundings well.