concrete_and_light
Active Member
The City setting height peaks like that seems somewhat arbitrary and aesthetic to me. I mean why not have a height peak here if it doesn't impact parks or other aspects of the public realm or other nearby areas in a negative way? There's already skyscrapers on either side and for blocks all around, so why does the height have to peak at Yonge? It seems like somewhat of an aesthetic judgement call vs. there being any concrete reason why there couldn't be a new height peak a street or so over from Yonge. And this site is a hop skip and a jump from Yonge.
If a hypothetical proposal were to dodge around all the shadowing issues, etc., what's the reason besides just the City made the aesthetic/planning judgemental call that Yonge should be the peak?
Not that I totally object to somewhat of an aesthetic approach taken in designing our skyline and the built form of the city — that has its advantages — and the height spire along Yonge is cool, but also some 3D depth within skyscraper districts would be aesthetically compelling too and I kind of see no reason not to allow it if the building doesn't have any negative impacts. Other cities around the world also have depth and various peaks throughout and we see this height depth forming in the southern part of the city now with Forma creating a new peak in the west skyline.
What would be the harm if this site were to become a height peak? (Just as a theoretical case — I think we're unlikely to see such a thing attempted here.) So long as it doesn't shadow parks, etc. the City saying the height peak needs to be at Yonge seems largely arbitrary. I wonder if City height peak preferences would hold up in appeal if a project decided to push to create a new peak and had the right circumstances where the shadowing impacts would be minimal.
If a hypothetical proposal were to dodge around all the shadowing issues, etc., what's the reason besides just the City made the aesthetic/planning judgemental call that Yonge should be the peak?
Not that I totally object to somewhat of an aesthetic approach taken in designing our skyline and the built form of the city — that has its advantages — and the height spire along Yonge is cool, but also some 3D depth within skyscraper districts would be aesthetically compelling too and I kind of see no reason not to allow it if the building doesn't have any negative impacts. Other cities around the world also have depth and various peaks throughout and we see this height depth forming in the southern part of the city now with Forma creating a new peak in the west skyline.
What would be the harm if this site were to become a height peak? (Just as a theoretical case — I think we're unlikely to see such a thing attempted here.) So long as it doesn't shadow parks, etc. the City saying the height peak needs to be at Yonge seems largely arbitrary. I wonder if City height peak preferences would hold up in appeal if a project decided to push to create a new peak and had the right circumstances where the shadowing impacts would be minimal.
Last edited:
- a few (VERY) crude block massings of what a 360m tower would look like on that site as well as a shorter (more realistic) 305m version. Both have a floorplate of ~560m2 to accommodate 25m setbacks to east, south, & west.
