News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
A Message to Our Readers
 8.9K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
EarthCam Time-Lapse Documents Rafael Viñoly-Designed New Stanford Hospital Construction
 40K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
Resort Town
 5.1K     0 

I know some bigger cities with fewer towers and no buildings bigger than ours and they seem to be doing not just fine but great without 300m+ monstrosities. Besides, I can't say I've ever looked at a skyline and said "I wish I lived there because their buildings are so huge".

Fact is, how tall a building is means absolutely nothing when you're interacting within the city's environment. I know you've had many wet dreams about Dubai, but you'd be very hard pressed to make an argument that they do anything positive to enhance how people interact with their city, When it comes to city building the goal (particularly for city planners) is to create an environment that improves the relationship between the individual and their city, not provide eye candy for postcards.
 
Last edited:
jn_12 said:
I know some bigger cities with fewer towers and no buildings bigger than ours and they seem to be doing not just fine but great without 300m+ monstrosities. Besides, I can't say I've ever looked at a skyline and said "I wish I lived there because their buildings are so huge".

Fact is, how tall a building is means absolutely nothing when you're interacting within the city's environment. I know you've had many wet dreams about Dubai, but you'd be very hard pressed to make an argument that they do anything positive to enhance how people interact with their city, When it comes to city building the goal (particularly for city planners) is to create an environment that improves the relationship between the individual and their city, not provide eye candy for postcards.
Click to expand...

Having tall buildings and a welcoming environment for people on the street are not mutually exclusive concepts. Of course we don't need tall buildings, but how does capping their height really add to the public realm? Wind and shados have to do with form and massing than height.

And perhaps it's just me, but tall buildings create a sense of 'big city' grandeur and energy that I love, which simply cannot be replicated in a mid-rise neighbourhood.
 
Have you been to London or Paris? "Big city grandeur without" the height.

Of course tall buildings can be presented at street level in a way to enhance the public realm, but it rarely is done well. The waterfront is a pretty good example that people tend to bring up along with the row of buildings on Fleet St. I'd also ask, is it merely coincidental that Toronto's most vibrant areas (St Lawrence, Queen St, etc) are heavily populated with low-rise structures?
 
jn_12 said:
Have you been to London or Paris? "Big city grandeur without" the height.

Of course tall buildings can be presented at street level in a way to enhance the public realm, but it rarely is done well. The waterfront is a pretty good example that people tend to bring up along with the row of buildings on Fleet St. I'd also ask, is it merely coincidental that Toronto's most vibrant areas (St Lawrence, Queen St, etc) are heavily populated with low-rise structures?
Click to expand...

Yes I have. They may be energetic and dynamic, but to me they simply do not have that 'big city' grandeur of a New York or a Chicago. I couldn't imagine Blade Runner set in London or Paris.
 
Ramako said:
Yes I have. They may be energetic and dynamic, but to me they simply do not have that 'big city' grandeur of a New York or a Chicago. I couldn't imagine Blade Runner set in London or Paris.
Click to expand...

So we're now "city building" based on futuristic Hollywood flicks? And psst, Bladerunner is set in a futuristic LA, a city not exactly known for it's density and urbanity. Give me energetic and dynamic over "big city grandeur" anyday.

EDIT: And what's hilarious about your argument is that Toronto is used all the time as a fill in for Chicago and New York. It seems we're quite good at mimicking "big city grandeur" with our supposedly puny buildings.
 
Last edited:
jn_12 said:
So we're now "city building" based on futuristic Hollywood flicks? And psst, Bladerunner is set in a futuristic LA, a city not exactly known for it's density and urbanity. Give me energetic and dynamic over "big city grandeur" anyday.

EDIT: And what's hilarious about your argument is that Toronto is used all the time as a fill in for Chicago and New York. It seems we're quite good at mimicking "big city grandeur" with our supposedly puny buildings.
Click to expand...

First, I know that Blade Runner was set in LA, and that, no, LA is not known for density and urbanity, but I'm not talking about LA, am I? I'm talking about the fictional, futuristic LA wherein the movie is based. You could tell me that it was based in future Tulsa, Oklahoma and it wouldn't change my opinion of the aesthetic of the hypothetical city presented in the film, despite the reality today.

Secondly, I'm not saying that Blade Runner should be the basis on which we should plan our city, but only that it's a misconception to claim that you can achieve a 'big city' feel with a midrise landscape. I'm trying to highlight that, despite how dynamic and vibrant a city like London or Paris are, there's an atmosphere that they simply can't produce, and it's an atmosphere that you get on the streets of Manhattan or Chicago. If you don't perceive that, there's nothing I can do about that, but I do perceive it.

Thirdly, where did I state that our buildings are puny? My very point is that we do have the 'big city grandeur' to step in for such cities and we shouldn't ignore that that's our aesthetic. Toronto's always going to look more like New York or Chicago than Paris, so let's embrace it and work with it.
 
RoboCop was set in a near futuristic Detroit. Except that that version had buildings instead of the parking lots and empty lots there is now in Detroit. However, the RoboCop TV series was filmed in Toronto and Mississauga, but set in Detroit.
 
Ramako said:
First, I know that Blade Runner was set in LA, and that, no, LA is not known for density and urbanity, but I'm not talking about LA, am I? I'm talking about the fictional, futuristic LA wherein the movie is based. You could tell me that it was based in future Tulsa, Oklahoma and it wouldn't change my opinion of the aesthetic of the hypothetical city presented in the film, despite the reality today.

Secondly, I'm not saying that Blade Runner should be the basis on which we should plan our city, but only that it's a misconception to claim that you can achieve a 'big city' feel with a midrise landscape. I'm trying to highlight that, despite how dynamic and vibrant a city like London or Paris are, there's an atmosphere that they simply can't produce, and it's an atmosphere that you get on the streets of Manhattan or Chicago. If you don't perceive that, there's nothing I can do about that, but I do perceive it.

Thirdly, where did I state that our buildings are puny? My very point is that we do have the 'big city grandeur' to step in for such cities and we shouldn't ignore that that's our aesthetic. Toronto's always going to look more like New York or Chicago than Paris, so let's embrace it and work with it.
Click to expand...

Bingo.
 
kool maudit said:
paris has far more "big-city grandeur" than chicago.
Click to expand...

We are simply using the same term to describe two entirely different atmospheres. Whatever you want to call it, I prefer the particular flavour of grandeur of cities like New York or Chicago to cities like Paris or London. You may prefer one over the other, and that's your choice, but I simply ask for acknowledgment that there is indeed a difference.
 
there is a difference, but i don't think it has much to do with grandeur. either way, as you correctly noted, this is totally subjective.
 
Ramako said:
We are simply using the same term to describe two entirely different atmospheres. Whatever you want to call it, I prefer the particular flavour of grandeur of cities like New York or Chicago to cities like Paris or London. You may prefer one over the other, and that's your choice, but I simply ask for acknowledgment that there is indeed a difference.
Click to expand...

Why not both? And either are preferrable to Dubai or Pudong...
 
Ramako said:
We are simply using the same term to describe two entirely different atmospheres. Whatever you want to call it, I prefer the particular flavour of grandeur of cities like New York or Chicago to cities like Paris or London. You may prefer one over the other, and that's your choice, but I simply ask for acknowledgment that there is indeed a difference.
Click to expand...
Sure there's a difference. But not a hugely impacting one, and definitely not one enough that we should sacrifice the opportunity to have downtown-like density for kilometres outside the core just so we can have the gigantic enough buildings to have a North American downtown feel.

EDIT: And also, we still don't need massive buildings to get that feel. Mid rise neighborhoods are still great, but if you want that high density downtown Chicago or Manhattan feel, you still only really need 100-150m buildings. Any taller just becomes redundant.
 
Last edited:
Second_in_pie said:
Sure there's a difference. But not a hugely impacting one, and definitely not one enough that we should sacrifice the opportunity to have downtown-like density for kilometres outside the core just so we can have the gigantic enough buildings to have a North American downtown feel.

EDIT: And also, we still don't need massive buildings to get that feel. Mid rise neighborhoods are still great, but if you want that high density downtown Chicago or Manhattan feel, you still only really need 100-150m buildings. Any taller just becomes redundant.
Click to expand...

I disagree heavily

3 to 5 300m plus will do wonders for the skyline. Asupertall to finish it off would be great.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top