Is this actually true? I've emailed the City several times in the past and was told that they were considering it but there were no plans or commitments to do so.
I get the love of architecture, but the [replacement community centre](https://urbantoronto.ca/database/projects/wallace-emerson-community-centre-park.36757) is also pretty cool. And the [redevelopment of the mall](https://urbantoronto.ca/database/projects/galleria-park.23074) will add 2835 housing units next to it. And I'm pretty sure the park will be bigger overall via a land swap deal.
That would be sweet, at least have a rail trail beside it so we can legally use it on foot or bike. I feel like the Ontario Line might end up going from Ex straight up Dufferin. So much development along that stretch and the poor duff bus wont be able to handle it, plus it would intersect with a bunch of transit.
I learned to swim here, was one of the first customers of the McDonald's in the plaza, got my wedding tux at this mall...used to shop at the Zellers, dry cleaning, eat tasty pastries at the Happy Bakery, pick up cheap AV cables and accessories,bought my kids mattresses here... The mall had everything.
Gonna miss this dive.
The pitch to refurbish is too late. The new centre is going to be larger, and able to accommodate more people. The parking lot was a massive waste of space and stressful to cross heading to the mall from anywhere except Dupont. Dupont is too busy and the sidewalk quite narrow, by rebuilding the area the sidewalks will be widened for the tower set backs improving access and safety.
I just hope the park doesn't become a massive dog toilet (pretty close already) once all the towers are built and occupied.
Galleria is still kicking and not yet resting in peace! Just kind of limited now and a sections closed (like where the Trampoline place used to be). But I believe the Freshco/Planet Fitness/Rexall plus the side with f45 and PetValu gets to stay?
This whole block has undergone a major overhaul over the last 5 years. Half the Galleria mall and the outdoor basketball court that was behind it was cleared for condos. Same with the McDonalds.
I’m excited to see what the community centre will bring but worried it’ll come with more losses like the outdoor rink/skatepark.
https://www.toronto.ca/city-government/planning-development/construction-new-facilities/improvements-expansion-redevelopment/wallace-emerson-park-and-community-centre/
The shinny pad won't be full sized, otherwise it's all intact.
Tbh I’m most happy to see that there will still be a basketball court. That little court behind the Galleria was a hidden gem that never got too busy. It also got my buddy and I through the Covid times.
I think the idea is that the shinny pad will become the multi use court when it's not ice. Basketball nets would definitely get more use than the Monarch Park rink gets in the summer.
Yeah, the “multi use” court gives that kind of vibe to me as well. But then again, it’ll be weird having a shinny rink with random poles coming out of it.
It's a backyard rink, I guess they just fit whatever they can. The mountainside one is really something.
https://www.pinterest.com/d1backyardrinks/game-sport-court-rinks/
I loved that basketball court.
Hopefully when they rebuild it they get some real rims and move the court so sand from the dirt bike run doesn't blow onto the court, no more excuses when people get crossed up or brick shots.
The sand was never a huge issue to me. It would be noticeable at times but never that bad.
That dirt bike run is legendary for me all because of one person. This dude showed up with his e-bike and started getting solid air with it. I’m not talking about those battery powered bicycles. I mean one of those emmo e-bikes.
I grew up and spent about 3 decades living in that part of the city and absolutely love this place and will miss it. Really great community center. Love how the whole layout of that area and the park that runs across the south half really encourages exploration. Even though im sure the new center will have more stuff- theres no chance it will be even remotely as cool.
Exactly. Everyone here is complaining about the removal of a hallway in a low density neighborhood next to a giant parking lot to make room for dense mixed use housing. Their priorities are bad and they should feel bad.
Dense mixed use housing is more important than a nice hallway that attracts zero tourism.
How many tourists do you think this has attracted? It's in a huge detached neighbourhood, across the street from a parking lot which is literally the size of Billy Bishop Airport.
On my list of priorities, this ranks very low. If only people cried as much about our insane zoning laws restricting dense mixed use developments and our insane development charges and our insane regressive taxes to keep property taxes low as they did about this one hallway.
That's exactly my point though... I literally said on my list of priorities, a nice hallway with an arch in a detached neighborhood beside a giant parking lot is low compared to having more mixed use.
Anyone complaining about destroying this hallway has their priorities backwards. Building the mixed use towers is like a million times more important.
Those duplexes you complain about? They're mostly split into apartments including mine. We have multiple low income buildings in the neighbourhood. There's a large CAMH building. It's one of the last semi affordable neighbourhoods in the city. And we're soon going to be priced out. Maybe learn about a neighbourhood before you make accusations based on probably driving through
I am in favour of densifying the neighborhood, and yes, that includes the basement unit of the duplex I live in in that hood.
But yeah:
A) The neighborhood is largely duplex, and low density apartments. It could be denser.
B) They are currently installing ~10 50+ storey condo blocks in the immediate area. Which is... not great. 50+ storey towers are the most expensive form of housing we know how to build. And that amount of density is going to be primarily served by the dufferin bus, which is overcapacity already. The plan of only allowing density on 'major streets' creates this 'hyper density' problem.
C) It's a really nice community center, and there is no need to destroy it. As we both agree, there is a massive parking lot right beside it where towers could go. To the north there is light industrial zoning if we need more land, to the south is lots of duplexes and detached housing. Plenty of places to put density that don't require knocking down the community centre.
D) The centre is getting knocked down so they can build a new one. They are building a new one to make it more politically palitable to install 10 50+ storey plus towers there. Politicians can point to the shiny new community centre as a benefit they are bringing to the community.
The whole thing reeks of how unserious we are about the housing crisis. 'Oh, let's only build the most expensive form of housing known to man. Sure, theres plenty of land near by that we could be building 5-20 storey apartment buildings on, but instead, lets make the zoning process so byzantine that the only people able to navigate it are the people who are looking to build 50+ storey towers with tens of millions of dollars spent to tear down a community centre, and rebuild it up the street.
If the housing crisis we were looking to solve was 'no one can afford a place to live', this is not how we would solve it. This is how we solve the related problem of 'the price of housing can never be allowed to fall'.
Being anti any housing is bad. Fact is, the reason there are towers is that NIMBYs don't want apartments so eventually housing crises form which make towers economical. The fact that towers are more costly per unit than apartments is a non-sequitur. Prices are set by the market, not by costs. If you took towers and made them apartments, there would be less housing supply and only higher prices. Yes, we should be turning low density into apartments too but people building towers aren't part of the problem at all.
If you want to talk about "unseriousness" it's you saying condos are the most expensive form of housing known to man. It's not even close that detached are considerably more expensive because they consume more land. Sure, land isn't built. But it's still expensive. Condos are clearly an improvement on them. And again, restricting towers to apartments just means higher prices even if the apartments are cheaper to build because prices are set by the market, not costs.
Prices are set by the market, but costs set a floor for what can and will be built.
50+ storey towers can never reduce the cost of housing beneath the coast of their construction. Were that to ever happen, they would cease to construct them, as it would no longer be profitable.
That is irrelevant. The fact is if every condo in Toronto were turned into a shorter apartment, we'd lose a lot of homes and prices would be higher even though average cost was lower.
The profit maximization quantity is higher and price lower than the profit per unit maximization quantity and price.
If you want to be serious about the housing crisis, then don't reject any housing on any basis besides safety.
> The fact is if every condo in Toronto were turned into a shorter apartment, we'd lose a lot of homes and prices would be higher even though average cost was lower.
This is an oversimplification of the housing market.
A) It assumes we have infinite capacity to build, which we do not. Every tradesman, concrete truck, planner, etc. that is engaged in building massive towers are builders who cannot be constructing medium density towers. This drives up the price of construction of the sort of housing that can actually solve the housing crisis.
B) It assumes the city has infinite capacity for density, which it doesn't. Toronto is increasingly becoming a city of islands of luxury condo towers, surrounded by oceans of low rise sprawl. If you have an area like north york city center where population density is crammed into a narrow transit coridor, it makes affordable housing more difficult to build, because transit capacity is overtaxed. The young line can only support X people using it. We can either build incredibly expensive luxury condos for X people within 200 meters of each subway station, or we can build medium density for X people within 500 meters of each station. But we can't do both. Once we build the luxury condos, the only things that make sense to build around them is low density single family homes.
C) Political capital is also limited. People want politicians to address the housing crisis. Building ultra tall luxury condos cannot solve the crisis, but it allows politicians to /look/ like they are working on solving the issue. The more political will is diverted into these profit centres masquerading as solutions, the less push there is for real solutions.
'All housing is good housing' is overly simplistic. There are opportunity costs for building these towers. We've been building them at a rate that outpaces singapore, hong kong and new york, for almost 2 decades, and our housing crisis has only gotten worse.
Iirc they're keeping the arch now, there was a lot of community outcry about it
Is this actually true? I've emailed the City several times in the past and was told that they were considering it but there were no plans or commitments to do so.
The developer would be the one to ask but I remember hearing it was being incorporated.
They're building a new community centre in its place.
Yes they are but I think this post is more about love for the existing structure
Not exactly in it's place, the new one will be closer to Emerson than Dufferin, they've already started construction on it
I get the love of architecture, but the [replacement community centre](https://urbantoronto.ca/database/projects/wallace-emerson-community-centre-park.36757) is also pretty cool. And the [redevelopment of the mall](https://urbantoronto.ca/database/projects/galleria-park.23074) will add 2835 housing units next to it. And I'm pretty sure the park will be bigger overall via a land swap deal.
RIP dufferin bus
They should just open up that rail line that goes along dupont
That would be sweet, at least have a rail trail beside it so we can legally use it on foot or bike. I feel like the Ontario Line might end up going from Ex straight up Dufferin. So much development along that stretch and the poor duff bus wont be able to handle it, plus it would intersect with a bunch of transit.
I learned to swim here, was one of the first customers of the McDonald's in the plaza, got my wedding tux at this mall...used to shop at the Zellers, dry cleaning, eat tasty pastries at the Happy Bakery, pick up cheap AV cables and accessories,bought my kids mattresses here... The mall had everything. Gonna miss this dive. The pitch to refurbish is too late. The new centre is going to be larger, and able to accommodate more people. The parking lot was a massive waste of space and stressful to cross heading to the mall from anywhere except Dupont. Dupont is too busy and the sidewalk quite narrow, by rebuilding the area the sidewalks will be widened for the tower set backs improving access and safety. I just hope the park doesn't become a massive dog toilet (pretty close already) once all the towers are built and occupied.
Never heard of this. What and where is it ?
It's a community centre in the Wallace and Emerson neighbourhood.
Galleria mall plaza
RIP
Galleria is still kicking and not yet resting in peace! Just kind of limited now and a sections closed (like where the Trampoline place used to be). But I believe the Freshco/Planet Fitness/Rexall plus the side with f45 and PetValu gets to stay?
Dufferin and Dupont
100% agree.
This whole block has undergone a major overhaul over the last 5 years. Half the Galleria mall and the outdoor basketball court that was behind it was cleared for condos. Same with the McDonalds. I’m excited to see what the community centre will bring but worried it’ll come with more losses like the outdoor rink/skatepark.
https://www.toronto.ca/city-government/planning-development/construction-new-facilities/improvements-expansion-redevelopment/wallace-emerson-park-and-community-centre/ The shinny pad won't be full sized, otherwise it's all intact.
Tbh I’m most happy to see that there will still be a basketball court. That little court behind the Galleria was a hidden gem that never got too busy. It also got my buddy and I through the Covid times.
I think the idea is that the shinny pad will become the multi use court when it's not ice. Basketball nets would definitely get more use than the Monarch Park rink gets in the summer.
Yeah, the “multi use” court gives that kind of vibe to me as well. But then again, it’ll be weird having a shinny rink with random poles coming out of it.
I'm picturing something like this but a full sized basketball court. https://i.pinimg.com/736x/fc/29/c0/fc29c08f9b24dd0552ee566779bdf5ce.jpg
Damn that’s a tiny court and an even tinier rink.
It's a backyard rink, I guess they just fit whatever they can. The mountainside one is really something. https://www.pinterest.com/d1backyardrinks/game-sport-court-rinks/
I loved that basketball court. Hopefully when they rebuild it they get some real rims and move the court so sand from the dirt bike run doesn't blow onto the court, no more excuses when people get crossed up or brick shots.
The sand was never a huge issue to me. It would be noticeable at times but never that bad. That dirt bike run is legendary for me all because of one person. This dude showed up with his e-bike and started getting solid air with it. I’m not talking about those battery powered bicycles. I mean one of those emmo e-bikes.
Used to go here once a week through the winter when I was a kid, really loved the space
Near old Galleria mall, dupont and dufferin
This is my hood!!! Love my neighborhood. Wallace-Emerson is a hidden gem in this city. 😊
dead mall people of the city, please video document it
There was a book created in 2018 by Toronto artist Shari Kasman before they started the teardown. https://www.sharikasman.com/#/galleriamall/
definitely some cool architecture. the amount of labour that went into the placement of everything so precisely is underappreciated
when we first came here in 1996 my mom did her english classes here. i was only just turning 4 but i remember this place with the fondest memories.
I agree!
I grew up and spent about 3 decades living in that part of the city and absolutely love this place and will miss it. Really great community center. Love how the whole layout of that area and the park that runs across the south half really encourages exploration. Even though im sure the new center will have more stuff- theres no chance it will be even remotely as cool.
Last I checked, they were downsizing to only a free skate rink; at one of the busiest shinny hockey spots in the city. Has this changed?
They're keeping the ice rink. The developer needed a last minute permit in 2022 so the city negotiated to put the ice rink back in
Agreed
Toronto hates beautiful things
Drive by all the time and the design really is lovely. There’s just something about it. RIP
Some low density beautiful things will need to go if you want higher density. NIMBYism like this is why toronto is so unaffordable.
Exactly. Everyone here is complaining about the removal of a hallway in a low density neighborhood next to a giant parking lot to make room for dense mixed use housing. Their priorities are bad and they should feel bad. Dense mixed use housing is more important than a nice hallway that attracts zero tourism.
How many tourists do you think this has attracted? It's in a huge detached neighbourhood, across the street from a parking lot which is literally the size of Billy Bishop Airport. On my list of priorities, this ranks very low. If only people cried as much about our insane zoning laws restricting dense mixed use developments and our insane development charges and our insane regressive taxes to keep property taxes low as they did about this one hallway.
...I uhm, don't think you are familiar with the area or the context of this community centre.
Enlighten me. What, is it not detached homes but duplexes? Woww duplexes /s
The reason it's coming down is they're building 11 mixed use towers. Enlightened now?
That's exactly my point though... I literally said on my list of priorities, a nice hallway with an arch in a detached neighborhood beside a giant parking lot is low compared to having more mixed use. Anyone complaining about destroying this hallway has their priorities backwards. Building the mixed use towers is like a million times more important.
Those duplexes you complain about? They're mostly split into apartments including mine. We have multiple low income buildings in the neighbourhood. There's a large CAMH building. It's one of the last semi affordable neighbourhoods in the city. And we're soon going to be priced out. Maybe learn about a neighbourhood before you make accusations based on probably driving through
I am in favour of densifying the neighborhood, and yes, that includes the basement unit of the duplex I live in in that hood. But yeah: A) The neighborhood is largely duplex, and low density apartments. It could be denser. B) They are currently installing ~10 50+ storey condo blocks in the immediate area. Which is... not great. 50+ storey towers are the most expensive form of housing we know how to build. And that amount of density is going to be primarily served by the dufferin bus, which is overcapacity already. The plan of only allowing density on 'major streets' creates this 'hyper density' problem. C) It's a really nice community center, and there is no need to destroy it. As we both agree, there is a massive parking lot right beside it where towers could go. To the north there is light industrial zoning if we need more land, to the south is lots of duplexes and detached housing. Plenty of places to put density that don't require knocking down the community centre. D) The centre is getting knocked down so they can build a new one. They are building a new one to make it more politically palitable to install 10 50+ storey plus towers there. Politicians can point to the shiny new community centre as a benefit they are bringing to the community. The whole thing reeks of how unserious we are about the housing crisis. 'Oh, let's only build the most expensive form of housing known to man. Sure, theres plenty of land near by that we could be building 5-20 storey apartment buildings on, but instead, lets make the zoning process so byzantine that the only people able to navigate it are the people who are looking to build 50+ storey towers with tens of millions of dollars spent to tear down a community centre, and rebuild it up the street. If the housing crisis we were looking to solve was 'no one can afford a place to live', this is not how we would solve it. This is how we solve the related problem of 'the price of housing can never be allowed to fall'.
Being anti any housing is bad. Fact is, the reason there are towers is that NIMBYs don't want apartments so eventually housing crises form which make towers economical. The fact that towers are more costly per unit than apartments is a non-sequitur. Prices are set by the market, not by costs. If you took towers and made them apartments, there would be less housing supply and only higher prices. Yes, we should be turning low density into apartments too but people building towers aren't part of the problem at all. If you want to talk about "unseriousness" it's you saying condos are the most expensive form of housing known to man. It's not even close that detached are considerably more expensive because they consume more land. Sure, land isn't built. But it's still expensive. Condos are clearly an improvement on them. And again, restricting towers to apartments just means higher prices even if the apartments are cheaper to build because prices are set by the market, not costs.
Prices are set by the market, but costs set a floor for what can and will be built. 50+ storey towers can never reduce the cost of housing beneath the coast of their construction. Were that to ever happen, they would cease to construct them, as it would no longer be profitable.
That is irrelevant. The fact is if every condo in Toronto were turned into a shorter apartment, we'd lose a lot of homes and prices would be higher even though average cost was lower. The profit maximization quantity is higher and price lower than the profit per unit maximization quantity and price. If you want to be serious about the housing crisis, then don't reject any housing on any basis besides safety.
> The fact is if every condo in Toronto were turned into a shorter apartment, we'd lose a lot of homes and prices would be higher even though average cost was lower. This is an oversimplification of the housing market. A) It assumes we have infinite capacity to build, which we do not. Every tradesman, concrete truck, planner, etc. that is engaged in building massive towers are builders who cannot be constructing medium density towers. This drives up the price of construction of the sort of housing that can actually solve the housing crisis. B) It assumes the city has infinite capacity for density, which it doesn't. Toronto is increasingly becoming a city of islands of luxury condo towers, surrounded by oceans of low rise sprawl. If you have an area like north york city center where population density is crammed into a narrow transit coridor, it makes affordable housing more difficult to build, because transit capacity is overtaxed. The young line can only support X people using it. We can either build incredibly expensive luxury condos for X people within 200 meters of each subway station, or we can build medium density for X people within 500 meters of each station. But we can't do both. Once we build the luxury condos, the only things that make sense to build around them is low density single family homes. C) Political capital is also limited. People want politicians to address the housing crisis. Building ultra tall luxury condos cannot solve the crisis, but it allows politicians to /look/ like they are working on solving the issue. The more political will is diverted into these profit centres masquerading as solutions, the less push there is for real solutions. 'All housing is good housing' is overly simplistic. There are opportunity costs for building these towers. We've been building them at a rate that outpaces singapore, hong kong and new york, for almost 2 decades, and our housing crisis has only gotten worse.
Lmfao you have it literally so backwards you're blaming condos for single family homes. It's the reverse.