News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
A Message to Our Readers
 9.8K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
EarthCam Time-Lapse Documents Rafael Viñoly-Designed New Stanford Hospital Construction
 41K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
Resort Town
 5.6K     0 

I'm on board with the tapering policy, I mostly don't get it. The CN tower views should be protected and St. Lawrence Market is lowrise/midrise but beyond that, each building should be evaluated on a 'case by case' basis based on existing and future planning frameworks.
 
neubilder said:
Wrong.
Click to expand...

I agree, completely wrong......

'pencil pushers' are there to protect us (and our cities) from profit-driven developers..... who care nothing about how buildings meet streets, the materials used in construction, the ways in which buildings affect people, etc.....
 
Agreed. The only places which should be subjected to tapering are around the "old city"/St. Lawrence Market, the Distillery District and la Tour CN. Everything else is fair game.

Actually the lakefront too. There shouldn't be 900 footers right up against the lake, it should taper down towards that too.
 
lovarkitec said:
I agree, completely wrong......

'pencil pushers' are there to protect us (and our cities) from profit-driven developers..... who care nothing about how buildings meet streets, the materials used in construction, the ways in which buildings affect people, etc.....
Click to expand...

Come on now....'tapering' policy, which is what we were talking about, has nothing to do with how buildings meet the street, the materials used in construction, or the ways that buildings affect people....I stand by my opinion, tapering policy is micro-management in extremis, and is basically a stupid idea....
 
yyzer said:
Come on now....'tapering' policy, which is what we were talking about, has nothing to do with how buildings meet the street, the materials used in construction, or the ways that buildings affect people....I stand by my opinion, tapering policy is micro-management in extremis, and is basically a stupid idea....
Click to expand...

good debate - i gave three reasons why it is a good idea. besides sticking to your original point that is is a 'stupid idea', can you say why? I am trying to understand your reasoning...
 
I should have added.... a skyline is a thing in and of itself - if there was no tapering at all, do you think it would impact the look/impact of it? i am trying to imagine buildings 80 stories high in the distillery district let's say.. they would look bizarre, wouldn't they? believe me, I love tall buildings as much as the gal, but also appreciate how our skyline clusters in the CBD and then flows out...
 
O.K., let's go back to the start of the conversation, with Ramako's original post....

Ramako said:
As the report explains, there are a lot of problems with this proposal, but for the life of me, I can't figure out how the height is one of them. This is literally one block away from 88 Scott, which was approved at over 200 metres, and it's far closer to the CBD than virtually of the Entertainment District towers, which are of similar height.

It's literally two blocks from King & Yonge for god's sake. You can't tell me that there isn't a significant anti-height presence within city planning staff.
Click to expand...

to which DSC replied....
The current City guidelines allow far greater height in the area where 88 Scott is going up s that is not in the Kng-Parliament area - the current guidelines etc call for buildings to slope downwards from the King Eddy (which is about 19 'regular' floors.) The planners are simply doing their job in pointing out that the 47 proposed storeys is not currently permitted on this site and I have heard the developers (actually the owners) are already proposing something lower.
Click to expand...

a few points....according to DSC's post, the King Eddy is the point from which buildings headed eastward must slope downwards...while I appreciate the successful midrise nature of the St. Lawrence neighbourhood, and I don't think we should mess with it, I don't see any compelling reason to force properties that are located west of Church to taper downward..why?

In a broader sense, we have seen reference to the same tapering guidelines in the Spadina area...why shouldn't a taller building be allowed on the west side of Spadina, than exists on the east side?

It all comes down to some planner's vision of a tapered skyline, which I don't think is necessary. I can't imagine Chicago today if, when the Sears Tower was completed, they then required all future buildings to taper downward from it..

btw, you state that you provided three reasons why tapering is a good idea, but I am only reading three reasons for good city planning..that's o.k., but I don't think you have addressed the tapering issue...
 
Last edited:
I should have added.... a skyline is a thing in and of itself - if there was no tapering at all, do you think it would impact the look/impact of it? i am trying to imagine buildings 80 stories high in the distillery district let's say.. they would look bizarre, wouldn't they? believe me, I love tall buildings as much as the gal, but also appreciate how our skyline clusters in the CBD and then flows out...
Click to expand...

well, that's an aesthetic judgement, which is great.....for me, I prefer a multiple cluster look to the skyline...:)
 
Last edited:
I have no problem with the implementation of sound planning principles. Rather my problem is with this desire to cut height for what amounts to purely aesthetic reasoning (i.e. tapering). Who are the planners to say that a tapering cityscape is aesthetically superior to a plateau-style cityscape (e.g. Manhattan) or a multi-peaked cityscape (e.g. Chicago)? Are those cities any less liveable because of a sometimes sudden drop-off or variation in heights? This tapering policy is totally arbitrary nonsense and indicative of an overzealous planning staff.
 
Ramako said:
I have no problem with the implementation of sound planning principles. Rather my problem is with this desire to cut height for what amounts to purely aesthetic reasoning (i.e. tapering). Who are the planners to say that a tapering cityscape is aesthetically superior to a plateau-style cityscape (e.g. Manhattan) or a multi-peaked cityscape (e.g. Chicago)? Are those cities any less liveable because of a sometimes sudden drop-off or variation in heights? This tapering policy is totally arbitrary nonsense and indicative of an overzealous planning staff.
Click to expand...

Toronto has no mechanism to reign in developers rezoning requests. Developers exploit 'precedent' because of this. This stretch of King has a well established low to mid-rise fabric with many great stretches of historic buildings, significant historic monumental buildings and a very nice streetscape. Allow this proposal and within a few years King will look like Bay Street, which in my opinion is a horribly banal wasteland as far as contributing to the richness urban experience is concerned.
 
neubilder said:
Toronto has no mechanism to reign in developers rezoning requests. Developers exploit 'precedent' because of this. This stretch of King has a well established low to mid-rise fabric with many great stretches of historic buildings, significant historic monumental buildings and a very nice streetscape. Allow this proposal and within a few years King will look like Bay Street, which in my opinion is a horribly banal wasteland as far as contributing to the richness urban experience is concerned.
Click to expand...

Do you really think the difference between this tower being 150 metres and 120 metres will affect whether or not the street becomes a banal wasteland? Remember the issue here isn't whether we should go highrise vs. midrise on this stretch (which seems to be the issue you're dicussing), but rather tapering (which is the supposed justification for a relatively slight reduction in height on a tower that will nevertheless be a high-rise in a mid-rise neighbourhood). Clearly this tapering policy makes neither side happy.
 
Ramako said:
Do you really think the difference between this tower being 150 metres and 120 metres will affect whether or not the street becomes a banal wasteland? Remember the issue here isn't whether we should go highrise vs. midrise on this stretch (which seems to be the issue you're dicussing), but rather tapering (which is the supposed justification for a relatively slight reduction in height on a tower that will nevertheless be a high-rise in a mid-rise neighbourhood). Clearly this tapering policy makes neither side happy.
Click to expand...

I think the proposal should be rejected in it's entirety. The King St. stretch of historic buildings in question should be left unmolested (ie. not facadectomized). If they can still squeeze a 10 storey building into the lot behind whilst accommodating their parking needs then great.
 
neubilder said:
I think the proposal should be rejected in it's entirety. The King St. stretch of historic buildings in question should be left unmolested (ie. not facadectomized). If they can still squeeze a 10 storey building into the lot behind whilst accommodating their parking needs then great.
Click to expand...

Totally agree.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top