Should the Queens Park view corridor be preserved?

  • Yes

    Votes: 168 43.3%

  • No

    Votes: 145 37.4%

  • Don't Know

    Votes: 15 3.9%

  • Don't Care

    Votes: 60 15.5%
  • Total voters
    388
the proposed buildings wouldn't be overwhelming to the view at all. If they keep the highrises north of Bloor, and go no further west of Bay than U condos, then it will be fine. It won't look anything like the Stars postcard. I think having some modern skyline visible in the distance of important landmarks can actually enhance what they offer visually. Bloor is in the core along high-speed transit, and it is appropriate for high density towers.
 
ponyboy said:
the proposed buildings wouldn't be overwhelming to the view at all. If they keep the highrises north of Bloor, and go no further west of Bay than U condos, then it will be fine.
Click to expand...

If this is allowed other buildings will be built here because we will have lost the opportunity to set a precedence and affirm a value system for our public realm.

ponyboy said:
It won't look anything like the Stars postcard. I think having some modern skyline visible in the distance of important landmarks can actually enhance what they offer visually. Bloor is in the core along high-speed transit, and it is appropriate for high density towers.
Click to expand...

There is plenty of room for density along Bloor that doesn't interfere with a heritage view corridor.
 
I've had very mixed feelings about this OMB decision and haven't been sure about which side of the fence I am on...

It seems that Queen's Park could either become an oasis, framed in by highrises, or will become lost in an overwhelming forest of blank-faced achitectural mediocrities.

If taller towers are to be built on that site, they should be subject to strict design review so they serve to enhance the view up University Ave. Wouldn't it be a shame if some nasty "Success tower" or RoCP went up and shamed our city every time a visitor took a photo of QP?

What about a building with a dramatic roofline of its own spire rather than just the default well-mannered neo-modernist box?
 
AlvinofDiaspar said:
Indeed. How does your view that there shouldn't be blue sky any less self-righteous and condescending? At least one can argue historically the intent of the siting of the Legislature is such that it commands attention without distraction - can you argue that your preference is the historical intent? What of your arrogance in saying that your wishes actually meant more than those who actually took the care to plan and design what's already there? Is THAT not the arrogance of modern architecture and planning at its most callous?
Click to expand...


I clearly stated my personal view and didn't use the word 'shouldn't' any where! This is my quote which you responded to: The 'sky police' seem to believe they occupy the moral high ground and solely represent those who care about the aesthetics of the city. The attitude is self-righteous and condescending. People have differing tastes and comfort levels when it comes to height, densities, scale, etc. Desiring a bookend of buildings or sky depends on one's own personal views when it comes to qualities in the built form.

Differing tastes? One's own personal views? It doesn't say 'shouldn't' anywhere!

You're being rather crafty to suggest that I've said something I haven't to fit your accusation. I also haven't imposed my personal views on view corridors as to whether certain proposals get built. That can't be said for the opposing view point. Not only has that view point been imposed as a result of the rejection of 21 Avenue's original height, but the general approach to people who object to this height reduction has been condescending. The insinuation is that the conclusion is reached through ignorance.

You do have a good point regarding historical intent, but cities grow, change, and adapt to the modern world. Historical intent holds weight if we want to be Venice. It's a jewel of a city, but it's also one the world has largely by passed.

Arrogance? Cities are for the living and shouldn't be forever dictated by those that came before. The Legislature is still being protected, as are many other features/characteristics of this grand boulevard. What is truly arrogant is for those who designed what's already there to dictate to all those who come after what can be built for blocks in every direction for ever after. If they had that expectation, it is they who are arrogant.

I have no interest in turning Toronto into a museum.

AlvinofDiaspar said:
Furthermore, since you are taking such a fluid view of issues such as height, densities, scale, etc. I am sure you'd have absolutely NO objections whatsoever should an absolute piece of eyesore of your choosing (but of course, such a description is by no means universal, given your understanding of aesthetics) suddenly confronts your place of residence on a permanent basis. I am sure you'd be delighted to have a chance put your own words into reality.
Click to expand...

You sure do use "I am sure" a great deal. It's generally not wise to make assumptions about people you don't know.

My place of residence? Now you've lost the plot. 21 Avenue Road isn't blocking anyone's place of residence. This is smack in the middle of downtown. If you're talking about people in the Annex, I have little sympathy. Malcontents can move to Orillia and stop holding the city ransom.
 
Last edited:
isaidso said:
21 Avenue Road isn't blocking anyone's place of residence. This is smack in the middle of downtown. If you're talking about people in the Annex, I have little sympathy. Malcontents can move to Orillia and stop holding the city ransom.
Click to expand...

Right on, and well said isaidso
Cheers...now lets get on with the implosion of that lousy existing (Four Seasons) building and get this new development rolling.
 
Last edited:
I think we will regret this if we let it go forward, and I think that highrises are great in almost every place but places like this, where a very important view exists, albeit some don't see the light on this one. I think the majority of people will realize the loss that we will have of this view if the towers are much taller than the current FS building. We all like height, but I think aesthetics in this situation trump height and this is our best terminus in the city I believe and should stay that way. There is lots of opportunity to build tall around, its not like we are running out of space like a NYC or Hong Kong. Plus these plain boxes certainly don't do this view justice. So I raise my glass to the symmetry that the view sort of has now, in hopes it will not be messed with. I thought for a while I wanted these towers, but in the end after visiting the intersection and walking up from Queen I realize how stupid it will look as a picture perfect view is lost for some greedy development mediocrity. Now if L tower or something similarily interesting was going up there instead of (again) two duplicates of towers done many times already in the city I may have changed my mind. NYC MADE THIS MISTAKE WHEN IT BUILT PAN-AM, an equally boring structure behind its GC Stn. I hope we don't make the same mistake. END RANT.
 
I'd rather they not be built at all since I value that view of the Legislature from the south. But if these buildings must be built, and they're "plain boxes" in the accepted Toronto Style sense - meaning that they're variations on the familiar form that we see all over the downtown these days, rectilinear neo-Modernism playing off of older structures - then they will be less likely to create a jarring discontinuity than if they're of the pretentious, screaming "look at me" L-tower / Trump tower / Ritz-Carlton-Gumbytower ilk thet tries to set themselves up as something superior ( but aren''t ).
 
^Meh! There will be 7 architectural enthusiasts that will lament the loss of this pristine view, but the vast majority of society will not. As well, I doubt history will look upon its loss as a the turning point in Toronto's downfall to dilapidation.

The Gooderham Flat Iron view just keeps getting better the more height they add behind it. L-Tower is going to throw it off balance for a while, but something will be built in the following decades to even things up.

I don't care if it's a couple of boring boxes at 21 Avenue road or not... Just build another 47 towers nearby and that post card shot would finally be deserving of Canada's most populace province.

Trapping this view in amber is unrealistic in a thriving metropolis.
 
Last edited:
If they knock this down, I will be very upset if they dont immediately move to re-establish an equivalent or larger shadow. Preserve the shadow so that we dont wilt in the harsh sun.
 
Tewder said:
If this is allowed other buildings will be built here because we will have lost the opportunity to set a precedence and affirm a value system for our public realm.
Click to expand...

This is neither a precedent set nor a lost opportunity to set a precedent. There was no policy even remotely close to controlling heights north of queens park for the purpose of preserving the view of the legislature that could be interpreted as such. The Board's purpose is to apply existing policies not create new ones. It can't interpret a non-existent policy. That being said I wouldn't be surprised if the City passed some sort of amendment to the Official Plan in the future that places some limits on height in the area.
 
Architecturefan said:
This is neither a precedent set nor a lost opportunity to set a precedent. There was no policy even remotely close to controlling heights north of queens park for the purpose of preserving the view of the legislature that could be interpreted as such.
Click to expand...

... hence the 'lost' opportunity, no?

At the end of the day it's all about the kind of city you want to live in: either one with a frontier town-type mentality where anything goes and nothing is valued at all, or one that believes in the notion of a public realm that is more than merely a blank slate for unbridled commercial development. The former cares for expediency only while the latter seeks a balance that makes sense to some greater good. Mandating for the preservation of heritage structures when there are empty lots available next door makes this kind of sense, and so does mandating for the preservation of natural or heritage vistas. This is a compromise though. We cannot save every single view corridor or every heritage building and the city does have to continue to evolve and grow, which is all the more reason why we have to be careful to choose the truly outstanding and significant examples for preservation. The University/Queen's Park view is just such an example. If we can't make a case for it then we can't make a case for anything, and this is the dangerous precedence we are setting.
 
Urban Shocker said:
I'd rather they not be built at all since I value that view of the Legislature from the south. But if these buildings must be built, and they're "plain boxes" in the accepted Toronto Style sense - meaning that they're variations on the familiar form that we see all over the downtown these days, rectilinear neo-Modernism playing off of older structures - then they will be less likely to create a jarring discontinuity than if they're of the pretentious, screaming "look at me" L-tower / Trump tower / Ritz-Carlton-Gumbytower ilk thet tries to set themselves up as something superior ( but aren''t ).
Click to expand...

A tall structure that gently tapers toward the top with a subtle spire would be the least intrusive and jarring on the skyline from the south. I gather you're fond of minimalist neo-modernism, but a flat roof or utilitarian mech penthouse doesn't make a building less "pretentious" than one that attempts to resolve itself with the skyline view it will be impeding on. Furthermore, these buildings will be far enough away from anything else of around the same height that they wouldn't be a jarring anomaly on the cereal-box landscape of Bay Street.

The City of London has tried for years to build around St. Paul's with the historical lobby fighting them all the way (because the tall buildings would block historical view corridors to the Cathedral's dome). After years (and years and years) of debate, the tall buildings to be approved in the area (Bishopsgate, St. Mary Axe, The Shard etc...) all have complex forms.

Do you think those buildings pretentious? Inferior to the big tall corporate boxes that could have been built instead?
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top