ushahid said:
Not projecting any fantasies, just want Toronto to have better architecture without any sacrifice. several beautiful projects are shot down each year because of stupid FSI and other regulations.
Click to expand...

This isn't a "beautiful" project even prior to this reduction (nevermind it did to the architecture currently on site).

AoD
 
never said the second design was beautiful. I liked the first design cause it was slim and simple and had less balconies.
 
rbt said:
I'll vote against any politician who enables the streets of Toronto to become as dark as the streets of New York. A giant wall of tall buildings doesn't make the city nice for much of anything except a 2 week visit every few years.
Click to expand...
Really, a few dark streets covering less than 1% of Toronto makes the whole city not nice to you? How does it even affect you if a tiny sliver of the city becomes tall and crowded like Manhattan?

I'm getting sick of people who seem to think that they own and should have a say in the development of the entire city. Newsflash: not everyone hates tall buildings. You have your neighborhood, let other people have theirs.
 
NeilV said:
Really, a few dark streets covering less than 1% of Toronto makes the whole city not nice to you? How does it even affect you if a tiny sliver of the city becomes tall and crowded like Manhattan?

I'm getting sick of people who seem to think that they own and should have a say in the development of the entire city. Newsflash: not everyone hates tall buildings. You have your neighborhood, let other people have theirs.
Click to expand...

Huh? Have you asked what people living in downtown by and large what they wanted to see? I mean from what I have seen - and I don’t necessarily agree with all of them - that there is a general concern over the knock on effects of density - and they have a better claim to that than the rest of the city.

AoD
 
Last edited:
For me the interesting part of Manhattan's built form is not high rises but the amazing collection of old building from various eras most notably Art Deco. As you stroll down one of the main arteries you get glances down side streets where heritage hasn’t been obliterated. Interesting this section of Elm is one small slice of the city that feels kind of Manhattan to me currently. This proposal is something altogether different. More Hong Kong than New York to me
 
AlvinofDiaspar said:
Huh? Have you asked what people living in downtown by and large what they wanted to see? I mean from what I have seen - and I don’t necessarily agree with all of them - that there is a general concern over the knock on effects of density - and they have a better claim to that than the rest of the city.

AoD
Click to expand...
You may be right, but it doesn't make sense to me that people who don't like density would want to live downtown.
 
condovo said:
^^^ If only height alone made for a good skyline. Aura is appalling and I wish it didn't look massive on the skyline. YSL doesn't look promising either. Nor does 8 Elm in its current iteration, whether 80 stories or 67. But height is the "Donald Trump" of UrbanToronto. Even if "height" shot someone on 5th Avenue, the fanboys here would still vote for it. To them, nothing else matters. Height, like Trump, is also a way to stick it to the "entitled elites" who care about stuff like design, density, shadowing, context, heritage, etc. Too complicated. Fake news. The only thing that's real is height, height, height!
Click to expand...

To be fair though, I get the feeling that some of you guys in here expect these buildings to be made of diamonds or expect them all to win architectural awards. That's not how the world works. In a city like Toronto where there are dozens upon dozens of new towers going up at any given time, it only makes sense that there are going to be some ugly ones. While I will admit I do love a tall tower, I also look at materials used, the street presence, the effect on the skyline, etc. There are many factors that make a building good/bad. But I notice a huge number of people on this website are very negative, pessimistic and always overly critical of every new building.

I always hear Aura get ripped apart, and yes it's not some national gem. But it's not a bad tower in my opinion. But everyone here HATES balconies so god help it if a building has those. Why not try looking at the glass half full?
 
By golly, it's good to be schooled by people who know how the world works! We should all be less critical of buildings going up in Toronto. It would really help some people here in UT who suffer terrible anxieties about new buildings going up that are hobbled by being of insufficient height - and unappreciated for their fine mediocrity.
 
ushahid said:
Not projecting any fantasies, just want Toronto to have better architecture without any sacrifice. several beautiful projects are shot down each year because of stupid FSI and other regulations.
Click to expand...
like beating a dead horse here with that comment. I have said the same and had the same comments said to me. Sad. Some don’t get it at all. Or see the potential Toronto should have.
 
Last edited:
^^^ So, Toronto's potential is measured in building height? I think the ones beating a dead horse are the height fetishists. I mean, no one, other than the height queens on UrbanToronto, measures the success of a particular project, or the success of a city in general, in terms of height - not architects, not planners, not developers.
 
Last edited:
I think what they're trying to say is that a tall building, one over 300 metres for instance, has a certain wow factor that it's height alone brings. I think architecture obviously matters, but super-tall buildings will always have simply being extremely tall going for them. And I think that cities with many tall buildings are generally, maybe subconsciously, seen as successful because it shows that they are thriving, and that they have the money and the demand needed to build many skyscrapers.
 
^^^ At least that's what the emirs of the UAE would have us believe. I suppose autocratic rulers, like some UT fanboys, measure success in terms of height for height's sake. Fanboy-satisfying height will happen here only when stakeholders line up and deem it necessary and worth the expenditure.
 
Last edited:
I would say creating a sense of community through space, scale, etc. rates higher than even architecture. That gets lost in many supertall developments around the world. They make great skylines and that's about it. The value in that impression doesn't last very long for the vast majority of visitors. Understandably, height rates highly on UT because it's the most visual. Delve deeper and it's not that important compared to FSI and those other regulations that attempt to create that sense of place and community. I would chose one of the many random small towns across Europe over our Entertainment District skyline district to visit and my dream would be to live comfortably on either "Side" of Central Park in New York.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top