City
They Paved Paradise and Put Up a Condo. Again.
I don't mean to brag, but I live in a pretty sweet neighbourhood. I'm right between Yorkville and the Annex, just off Bloor St. West. The generations-old homes are beautiful, the park down the street is clean and bright (and there's a water fountain, +50 points), the community consists of mainly college students and families, and I'm just a short walk from dozens of shops, restaurants, and - wait a minute.
What happened to that cute little pita place on the corner? Why can't I go and buy incence or some other meaningless crap I don't necessarily need but still very much enjoy? What are these giant barriers? They say, "ONE BEDFORD AT BLOOR", and there's a picture of...
Oh, no...no, it can't be.
THEY'RE BUILDING ANOTHER CONDO?!?!!!!!
*cue horror music*
Yes, you read that correctly. Much to my horror, and I doubt I'm alone in this one, Lanterra Developments and MCE Developments decided it would be a good idea to toss up yet another sky-high human stacker right at the end of my happy little street.
According to onebedford.com, one of the most pretentious overuses of flash I've seen in a while, along with pleasant victorian music playing through my speakers, here are a few brief stats regarding what we have to look forward to come June 2009:
A 32-storey, 262-unit building with a limestone exterior on the first eight floors and precast concrete and glass exterior on the upper floors.
Prices: from $582,900 for 777 sq. ft. to over $2.5 million for a penthouse with about 2,600 sq. ft.
Fees: 48 cents per sq. ft., plus hydro.
Sure sounds pretty. Maybe they should edit that a tad and write in "By the way, this building is going to block out the sun for like a mile around it, so sucks to be those guys on the ground. Tee hee." So much for enjoying a nice sunny afternoon on the patio at The Duke Of York, now you'll be subjected to staring into some woman's window while she does Pilates with her purse-ready Chihuahua in matching outfits.
I won't lie, I'm a bit of a night owl and I'm rarely outside experiencing this "day star" everyone keeps talking about. But when I go outside for a nice walk, I'm not going to be pleased when half the street is shadowed by some huge "precast concrete and glass" cash grab.
Don't even get me started on the waterfront. I was down there for the Fan Expo, and you can barely see the lake anymore through all the building construction. One of my favourite things about driving to the city when I was younger was looking at the lake as we went along the Gardiner. Now, it's just high-rise after high-rise with no signs of letting up. I wonder what it's going to be like driving along the waterfront with a million windows reflecting the sun and water into your eyes. So much for enjoying the view, have fun simply trying to see.
I guess you can tell by now I'm not into this whole condo thing. I grew up with a huge backyard, and I want my children, if I have them, to be able to do the same. I don't want to have to move an hour out of the city just to experience a bit of open land. There's always High Park, but with a city as large as ours, you'd think we'd have a bit more options.
In a few years, you'll be able to identify Toronto from space - just look for the hundreds of squares with little trees and swimming pools in the middle.
I left the condo's website open on another tab. I'm going to have that damn music in my head all day now. Ugh.
Photos by seekdes via Flickr and Roger Cullman.
Discussion
101 Comments
Sort By Oldest First / Newest First
Subscribe
Guess what: the fight over this condo happened 5 years ago. It's over. Bloor Street is where these developments belong so they don't eat up the homes with backyards and trees. That it's on two subway lines makes it even more perfect because it means the condo owners won't be driving everywhere.
Pita places like the one that was there, as well as the Mr. Sub and the Harvey's and the generic dollar stores are everywhere. This transit-oriented development is part of making our city more sustainable and curbing urban sprawl. Thankfully Toronto will continue to intensify its main streets, NIMBYs be damned.
Down with condos!
Without the pioneering developers who built your residence nestled between Yorkville and the Annex you'd be writing your pointless dribble from Maple and developers would be eyeing the Greenbelt to build a place for your retard kids to live once they decided to move out from your dump.
I'm all for condos if they're well-made and sold at fair prices.
if you don't like the big buildings move to a small town.
I am, however, totally with you on the overall crappiness of typical flash-happy condo web sites :-).
;)
And as someone mentioned, it's also good environmentally. More people living downtown = fewer cars on the freeways. Those are people who will walk, use transit, or cycle to get around.
Why is there such short-sited resistance in some quarters to any kind of new development? That's how cities grow and thrive and stay interesting. Yes, our history and certain buildings and neighbourhoods should be preserved. But getting all wistful about Mr. Sub and Harvey's? Please.
I didn't know that Annex backyards got any sunlight, what with all those pesky tall trees.
It's always going to be costly to buy in that area. There's a condo for every reasonable budget - you can go high 100's to several million. Get an agent and get informed.
I also don't have a problem with condos blocking the sun. They provide some much needed shade on hot summer days, and most new developments have more green space on their rooftops than the existing infrastructure that they replaced.
You're living in the largest and one of the fastest growing cities in Canada. Keep dreaming if you want a huge backyard at a reasonable price.
Or move to Coburg.
Damn.
Anyways, while I don't mind condos and believe that intensification is a good thing - especially for transit - there is such a thing as TOO intense.
Sometimes, condos get built without consideration into what the surrounding area can support - ie. Yonge and Sheppard. That area has become gridlocked with the massive amount of people moving into the relatively small area. Then there are services and utilities - I wonder if the sewers can handle all the... crap?
I don't know if this area has maxed out its potential, but it's an argument to consider. I like the idea of smaller intensified areas, little satellites, where transit, services, and access via roads is evenly spread across the city, as opposed to location of all points interest, habitation, and jobs to the downtown core.
If I had anything to say about they'd bulldoze the entire Annex, build 200 towers, move everyone from Milton here, and then eradicate it.
The number of buildings going up in the city is good thing for Toronto. Period.
At the same time. There are some nice backyards in areas of the city not High Park. Not to argue pricing, but the west end has some nice properties, as does the east side, a la East York and Leaside. Pretty sure North York, the bedroom community of the city also features some nice green patches, and all just as distant from the downtown core as High Park.
btw, in case you live in a cave, this building has been under construction for nearly 2 years!
What about a requirement for retail to be added on the ground floor facing the street to replace what was lost?
Requirement for some sort of green space?
I can get a 1,650 sq.ft. for $200,000 near the Eglinton and Jane LRT.
Opps! The LRT's are not built yet! Darn! Come back in 7 years.
ANex is overrated anyway. Yes it has beautiful old homes, half of which have been converted into apartment units for University students.
ANex is overrated anyway. Yes it has beautiful old homes, half of which have been converted into apartment units for University students.
Second, if you don't like tall buildings, I suggest you move to the country. Cities grow - upward particularly in the core - get used to it.
Third, what was torn down to make room for this condo was a piece of crap building that did nothing to enhance the cityscape. At least this condo _seems_ to have some decent design standards - as it should for the asking prices.
What the city does need is serious design standards in place like Vancouver. Too much awful looking crap gets built in the condo marketplace - this I will concede.
Mississauga is also home to the worst public transit system on Earth and the kind of sprawl that would make you cringe. Criticizing the aesthetics is fair comment, but really, the rest is absurdly off-point.
If you're concerned about prices, wait a few years - they've built too many, oversupply will bring the cost of ownership down.
The condos with no retail on the ground floor suck. Create dead zones in the city.
I thought condo's were eco-friendly, but I tried a carbon calculator http://www.toronto.zerofootprint.net/ and was surprised by its high estimate.
Regardless I moved into a condo in the spring and I see how energy intensive it is. 24/7 ventilation of all the fumes from the 6 level underground parking lot. All hallways lit 24/7 by about 70 bulbs per floor. Each unit has an alarm system with motion detectors on 24/7, security cameras at all exits. A key fob system on all doors.
Compared to a well inulated row house, condos are energy pigs.
As for the market. I've seen 7 for sale on the two floors nearest mine for 3 months now. An eighth was added two weeks ago. None have moved. So I'm guessing prices will start to come down soon.
Besides prices, some are just ridiculously designed. My favorite one is the one shown in Glas's gallery. The bed is in the kitchen!! 2 feet from the stove! (click on gallery)
http://www.glascondominium.com/
I think we should concern ourselves now more with their design, environmental standards, etc.
that's where the conversation is at.
how do you know that?
even if many aren't, toronto has been making a concerted effort to draw residents away from the suburbs and back downtown, wouldn't this be a success in that regard? creates a bigger tax base and a bigger market for local business
i won't even go into the soulless comment.
So, while condos should be environmentally friendlier, the basic problem is - maybe I'm just being snobby - they tend to attract "lifestyle buyers" who may not care. Do these people really take mass transit? I sure seem to see a lot of SUVs going into condos on Queen's Quay.
The city has three problems:
1. Is concentrated blocks of high density appropriate - on a major transit line the answer is clearly YES regardless of how cute the neighborhood might be.
2. Are the buildings designed appropriately with current city goals in mind: parking, eco-friendliness, etc.
3. Will these buildings age well in the future or will they tomorrow's ghettos? I've lived in a condo only briefly myself, and it was well on its way to becoming a downscale rental apartment wrapped in a condo disguise.
Don't forget to mention that they're also building another condo just east of there, called the Museum, because it's across from the ROM.
it's just tasteless, soulless, and frankly shortsighted planning and marketing- both of which are ALWAYS eyesores on the urban landscape. not to mention every website is rife with muzak. curses!
I also find it a tad bit ironic that you use Joni Mitchel's lyrics in your title. I think she was trying to make a point about suburban sprawl - this project in fact, is helping to reduce that. If you really need green space - there's a whole pile of it at the end of your street - it's called UT. Use it.
As for expensive condo prices - have you looked at the price of a downtown home lately? Condo's are a cheap alternative for those looking to have the convenience of living downtown, without the enormous price tag of a house in the annex.
@those of you with the "where have you been?" comments: Did you notice I just started writing for the site a week ago?
Although I'm pleased with the discussion my post has sparked, I'm suprised that the "pro-condo" commenters are so quick to judge. Also, did you grow up downtown? I'll bet alot of you did. Nearly every one of the people I have spoken to who aren't pleased with the amount of condos going up had the luxury of an actual lawn, and yes, I consider actual grass and dirt property far more valuable than being able to grab a spot in the newest snazzy condo(people lining up overnight to get a chance to buy at 1 Bloor? Give me a break.) Even north of the city, farmland is becoming scarce between Toronto and Barrie. I was amazed at how many townhouses had been put up since I had been home last.
Oddly enough the person who sparked my interest in this was my landlord, who has lived in Toronto his whole life, who told me the older community doesn't like the condo sprawl at all. It may be bringing more well off twenty-somethings in, but it's threatening to push everyone else out.
*goes to Russia* ;)
I can't afford a condo either, so I rent one. I like having a garbage chute, appliances, balcony, no leaky roof and no grass to cut (and no one's dogs shitting on it) or property taxes. I fit all my crap within 650 sq ft and a 20 sq ft storage unit. I can hide inside and have quiet, or I can wander outside and Chinatown, Kensington, Queen West and College West are practically at my door. You'd need a microscope to see my carbon footprint.
Rather than just join the chorus of hipsters complaining about condos, get involved in your local government and help to zone and protect areas of the city that are worth saving. If I only had a time machine, we'd still have the Uptown Theater. If I had to chain myself to the wrecking ball.
The only thing I remember at Bloor and Bedford is a couple of crappy shops, Mr. Sub and a Swiss Chalet. They can always be relocated.
I'm sure some condos are worse than others, but the same goes for detached housing and the area that Laura refers to, between the Annex and Yorkville (isn't that still the Annex?) contain some of the worst offenders. Old buildings that people have failed to bring up to par with newer housing. It might have character, but the neighbourhood is a carbon hog.
Secondly, one of the bigger environmental savings comes from the lack of sprawl. I live in an area surrounding by several tall apartment buildings with a population about equal to the ENTIRE city I grew up in (pop. 50,000). The difference in surface area not covered by pavement, the difference in area of grasslands and forests that were clear cut is HUGE. As is the amount of carbon required to commute around such a sprawl.
The difference between the same number of people living in 38,000 acres of land and 150 acres of land is massive. The cost to power the security system I'm afraid doesn't make a dent in that.
Colour: the reason the CBC building is the greatest bit of architecture in this city.
Can't say blogTO doesn't let their writers express themselves freely! Don't think you'll get that much in Russia, Laura :)
Don't let the folks dying to live on "mink lane" get you down... they're pumped about owning gentrified boxes in the sky and struggling to pay for them.
I spent the majority of my time a few years ago at my best friend's new condo, and he and his roomates ALL said that they hated it and prefered the detached house they shared afterward. It was much too small for what they were paying for, and the "luxuries" of a garbage chute and brand new appliances just aren't worth it unless you're in the bracket of people who are looking to buy and stay rather than rent, like current or recently graduated students who are a big part of the city.
Where do you want everybody to live? If they lived in the kind of houses in much of the Annex, Toronto would sprawl past lake simcoe.
It's fine to debate the merits of condo design, etc -- but to be "anti condo everywhere" is really to be anti-people. You don't want more people in your city. If you do, condo's are just about the only way they will fit, and the only way most people can afford to own something. Most condo's are not located at the end of Mink Mile and are much cheaper.
But you certainly fire up anti-condo folk who don't think through their arguments.
"Bracket of people who are looking to buy and stay." You mean, residents? Clearly the rental market for students is doing well enough, but not everyone wants to pour money into a place they'll never own.
Movin it on over, the big dog is movin in...
How on earth is it being anti-people? Have you ever heard of a little magazine called "Renter's News", or a website called viewit.ca? There are THOUSANDS of houses, apartments, lofts, etc. already for sale without having to throw up a condo tower at every corner. It's just not necessary to have as many going up as there are.
Are you one of the people who wanted them to put one up where the Queen West fire occured?
Everyone is so quick to jump down the throats of people who don't like the condo boom, but can't seem to accept the fact that there's a hefty portion of Toronto residents who don't want to lose the city's atmosphere entirely. Do the people who already live here not matter?
I don't understand what that has to do with the impression you've given us in your article that you just now noticed the condo construction. It doesn't matter when you started writing for blogto. The construction started ages ago and it's a bit late to start blogging about it now.
"Nearly every one of the people I have spoken to who aren't pleased with the amount of condos going up had the luxury of an actual lawn, ..."
What's your point? That it's reasonable for people from small towns and suburbs to expect big cities to be just like back home? It isn't. That's bizarre. Cities are different. If you prefer green lawns to big buildings, go where there are some.
BTW, I also live in the Annex, just a bit west of this development. I live in a rowhouse near Bloor, on a street that has lots of greenery. Almost everyone has a front and a back yard with shrubs, trees, flowers, etc. Toronto is actually a very green city if you make an effort to get around a bit and look.
Lots of parks nearby too. High Park is not the only green space in the city
Hefty portion? If you have some actual statistics to prove there are that many Torontonians opposed to condo development, please post them.
Or are you just talking about what you and some of your bachelor-renting, new-to-the-city friends think?
To the guy in the 5 story building who is going to have his view block -- doesn't your building block somebody's view?
Ok, it's my mistake to argue -- between this post and the Gay Slap in the Face Post of last week, the tone of BlogTO's posts are hints I shouldn't comment anymore, because the editorial direction of this blog ain't what it used to be. yes yes Russia etc.
In regards to this location, it's silly not to put up a high rise. It's right at the intersection of both subway lines offering extremely convenient transportation and access to all the amenities the city has to offer. There should be tall buildings surrounding St. George station (and for the most part, there are).
And FYI I live in a low rent 5 story building that I can see the CN tower from my balcony. On the other side of me... is a low rent 5 story building that can see the CN tower. On the other side of that bulding... a low rent 5 story building that can see the CN tower... Do you see the pattern here?
Anything else you'd care to assume? You look like you're arguing just to hear yourself speak.
@Laurence: It was a spin on an old song title. Maybe you're too young to remember it.
@City: Forgive my lacking "editorial skills", as I'm obviously new at this. Why not give pointers, or contribute yourself, rather than complaining about how the content isn't up to your standards?
We live in a condo building. 10 stories and about 30 years old so definitely none of the glass towers. It cost us over $500k. We love it - we can WALK to work and TTC right outside the door. Union station is less than a 10 minute walk away. The car is being returned at the end of the lease. Yeap, we bought a lifestyle - one that suits us better right now.
So that's how many people? 10? 20? 30?
"Perhaps you were sleeping during the whole Queen West debacle when rumours of a condo going up in it's place had everyone that lived there flat out pissed off."
The hysterical conspiracy theories surrounding that "debacle" is relevant to this situation ... how?
"Anything else you'd care to assume? You look like you're arguing just to hear yourself speak"
I'm conversing you, Laura, and everyone else here who has posted an opinion. Jeez, get a grip. Lose the anger. Do you only want to hear from people who pat you on the back for your super cool thoughts opinions? Is this really what blogto has come to?
"Forgive my lacking "editorial skills", as I'm obviously new at this"
Obviously.
"Why not give pointers, or contribute yourself, rather than complaining about how the content isn't up to your standards?"
This isn't an English class.
I wrote this post with some (apprently not very) obvious humour attached to it. Wish I could say the same for some of the commenters.
And, Laura, you seem rather new to the city but that whole West Queen West issue wasn't about intensification in the area, it was about affordable live-work space for artists who were being displaced by the new condos. Can you tell us about the artists who were displaced by this condo? Were any residents displaced at all?
If you want a cheap condo, look at the place around the old Canadian Tire just north of Keele and Dundas. The last time I was by there they were advertising units from the high 100s.
Anyways, Laura should feel fortunate that her boss isn't Donald Trump because you know what he'd say...
I'm not angry. But you're practically coming across as a troll.
A $250,000 zero down mortgage carries for around $1000/month... well worth owning vs. renting!
Laura> People here are being constructive, they're suggesting the many places your argument falls apart, "big back yard" and all. You're not addressing many of the points people are making, taking the Roger Cullman route to dealing with commentors.
Like I said before, I'm fine with condos. I'm not fine, with the ridiculous amount of them I see popping up everywhere. It's really a matter of opinion, is it not? Locals, students, residents that have been here for 60+ years...people from all of these groups have all clearly stated that they, too, don't like all the condos going up because they feel it takes away from what Toronto has been for so long.
Yes, I know, the future is coming, etc...but in 20 years, is there even going to BE an Annex left? The point I've been trying to make that has been ignored is that at the rate things are going, condos are going to eventually replace everything from Bloor to Finch. I can comment about the replacing of farm land with townhouses, because I've lived there and seen it. The space between Toronto and Barrie is getting much smaller, and eventually Highway 400 is going to be a huge stretch of suburbs with Canada's Wonderland in the middle. What I'm saying is that I'm not okay with that, and I know for a fact I'm not the only one.
Irregardless, there are places where condos are appropriate (and needed) and places where they are not.
Bloor street is one of the places where they most certainly are needed.
If someone were to tear down a block of historic buildings in the Annex or Queen West (as you accused one commenter of supporting), I think most of these people would be pissed off too.
Nobody is arguing that historic neighbourhoods should be torn down in the way of progress. They're simply stating that a Mr. Sub, Harveys and a run down building are hardly a candidate for saving. The city is growing and to meet the needs of the increasing population we have two and only two options to grow out or grow upwards.
Most people are suggesting that growing outwards is bad for the environment and fails to support the city that we all rely on. Given that, building upwards in appropriate locations is necessary.
Sure her timing on the 1 Bedford issue was a little late, but she had an opinion and she shared it. Don't like it? Oh well, life goes on.
As a side note, I can't believe that there has been over 80 comments on this post debating the merits of <a href="http://blogto.com/andrew";>condos in Toronto</a> and no one has mentioned the words "City Place" ;)
A more directed critique of the 'condo lifestyle' being sold by many developers would have been better received. Most people, including many who buy those condos, find it cheesy and artificial. That, however, doesn't make the concept of condominiums in general distasteful.
@gl: I don't know what your price argument is since there's homes all over the city for less than half that. I'm not about to purchase a home along the bridal path.
Laura, I abhor your generalizations. Rich people driving SUVs, rich people not taking public transit. I'll have you know that not everyone who drives an SUV makes $100k a year. And many people who earn around $30k don't use public transit.
Besides, even if the super rich drove instead of using public transit - that's not exactly a huge problem. Rich people are not the majority - their not even close to a significant fraction of the drivers in this city. The ones who clog the road the most are the ones who make as much as you and I.
point being - you can buy an affordable house in toronto, but it will be in scarborough or north york or some other shitty area, real estate is about location, the only way most people can afford to live downtown is to rent an apartment or buy a condo
since ownership is still the better financial option, condos are the smart choice
but, by all means, please move to scarborough (and that won't be anywhere near the bluffs)
lowest is 700k, average is well over a million...people really like lawns and trees!
@ha: I guess you missed the part where I said it was a bad stereotype but it's what I have seen and known to exist for a fact. Don't start an argument just to start it. Do you live in Toronto? Then you would know that while it's a stereotype, it's that way for a reason. It exists. Someone else mentioned it before I did, why didn't you acknowledge that as well? The fact that you referenced Helldump doesn't help your case in hating my opinion. No one wants anything to do with that trash here and I would very much appreciate it if you left that forum out of this discussion.
Laura has some good points, some not so good points (it did come across as NIMBY). But the thing is, maybe in some places we are intensifying too much. Cities like Paris and London (well... I didn't see ALL of London), don't have massive skyscrappers but they manage their density pretty well. We need to start managing our density better and intensifying other areas of the city.
I also feel that a lot of those condos going up will turn into ghost-towns or completely lose value as the young folks living in them realize that they want more space. There aren't any three bedroom apartments going up - nobody wants a family these days?
Now... Building a condo at a major intersection of public transit - that may be a good idea. I'm not against this condo at all.
"I also feel that a lot of those condos going up will turn into ghost-towns or completely lose value as the young folks living in them realize that they want more space. There aren't any three bedroom apartments going up - nobody wants a family these days?"
There is no more space though. Sure, all that farmland outside of the city, but as gas prices go out, our ability to live there will go down. And many of those people living there who find the costs too high will move into the city.
Vertical living is the future, there is no doubt. Laura's big lawns were a blip in history for 60 years.
I'm all for a lot of low rises. Space isn't being used as efficiently as it can be at the moment - but it's changing. Sheppard between Dufferin and Bathurst has sen a huge number of smaller low rises go up in recent years, replacing the individual homes that were on Sheppard. I think this is the start of a good thing.
Developing more areas of the city (not just with condos, but also office space, small industry, etc) encourages services to be spread out - instead of everyone crushing onto the Yonge line to go downtown every morning, people go to a job closer to where they live, seek entertainment in other areas, etc.
While not the best example, I think North York city centre is a good draft of what future city planning should involve - a smaller satellite "downtown". This place has entertainment, office space, restaurant, community services, public transit, condos, detached homes, parks, etc. We need more places like this in other areas of the city. This could take the pressure off the downtown core, which risks becoming over populated.
I wrote this post with some (apprently not very) obvious humour attached to it. Wish I could say the same for some of the commenters."
@Laura: "@City: Can you honestly say that all the pro-condo commenters have thought through their replies? I think you need to read them again."
Your defensiveness is akin to an American election season. Basically, "You're all just pro-condo haters and unToronto!" I love my city, I enjoy seeing it grow. I EXPECT it to grow in vertical density because I know I live downtown in a large city. I wish there were more architectural stunners. Is it mostly about the money for developers? YES! Welcome to capitalism - that's what we do here! However, some developers do give a shit though and have a passion for the city and want to build great buildings that enhance neighbourhoods. Shocking, isn't it? Do we need more green space? Yes. Do we need great design standards? Yes. Do we need more people to use transit/bikes/etc. Yes. Is it all possible? Yes!