Roy G Biv
Senior Member
Wouldn't it make sense to have shorter buildings on the waterfront? Am I crazy to suggest that lining up a bunch of tall buildings along the water will visually block the lakeview from the rest of the core?
- Thread starter themarc
- Start date
ADRM
Senior Member
The plan for the area (broadly) sees height peaks clustered around the northern and western boundaries of the immediate area, and all of the taller buildings are indeed planned to be north of Queen's Quay. All of the buildings recently completed, currently under construction, or proposed for south of Queen's Quay are relatively short.
Momin
Senior Member
jje1000
Senior Member
Streetscape looks rather bland.
alklay
Senior Member
This really looks awful. I am not sure what the renderings are supposed to show (are we just showing massing?), but the initial impressions show a dead streetscape of block long blank walls. And to kill the streets completely, they throw in a few skybridges. There will be no reason to walk outside except to run from one big building to another.
Why not try to create a neighbourhood, a place to stroll and walk around, with retail and other reasons to be outside? And throw in proper human scaling so that it does not feel like you are surrounded by overpowering tall blank buildings on windswept sidewalks?
This looks like its destined to be nothing more than a lifeless set of buildings whose only integration with the waterfront is some car entrances.
Why not try to create a neighbourhood, a place to stroll and walk around, with retail and other reasons to be outside? And throw in proper human scaling so that it does not feel like you are surrounded by overpowering tall blank buildings on windswept sidewalks?
This looks like its destined to be nothing more than a lifeless set of buildings whose only integration with the waterfront is some car entrances.
44 North
Senior Member
Jeez, these are tall proposals. Two at 300m? Unreal. Should make for some nice skyline photos by 2030. What's the overall UT consensus on an elevated PATH vs underground?
FMCS
Active Member
From the UT story, Clewes did say this is only massing study.... I'm sure it won't look like that.
ADRM
Senior Member
"A staff member from the City of Toronto said the development of the precinct would add about 600 trips of cars in the morning hours, and add 4000 people by foot. The street plan comes from the City's approved Lower Yonge Precint Plan..."
Ugh with a capital "U." I really hope brighter ideas about the public realm at grade prevail, from adding needless car-only streets to serve the minority mode, to the elevated walkways.
I really hope aA delivers (and Menkes grants them the latitude and budget to deliver) some good, active podiums.
Ugh with a capital "U." I really hope brighter ideas about the public realm at grade prevail, from adding needless car-only streets to serve the minority mode, to the elevated walkways.
I really hope aA delivers (and Menkes grants them the latitude and budget to deliver) some good, active podiums.
Strange Advance
Active Member
I'm not opposed to it, but it seems over-dense. Not enough transit to support the influx of residents.
G.L.17
Senior Member
Yes, these are strictly massing models. No architectural renderings will be made for a while still (along with streetscape and public realm design), especially with the feedback that the Waterfront DRP gave aA.
Elevated PATH bridges were essentially opposed by everyone; it would be a tough sell for any of them to be built.
Anyways, here are some more photos from last night's meeting in no particular order:
Elevated PATH bridges were essentially opposed by everyone; it would be a tough sell for any of them to be built.
Anyways, here are some more photos from last night's meeting in no particular order:
Attachments
Adjei
Senior Member
You can walk to Union Station within like 10 mins. Are we demanding a subway station here or what?
TheTigerMaster
Superstar
East Bayfront LRT is needed here. Also, there are reasons to be concerned about the pedestrian capacity of these streets. The area around Union Station is already overcrowded.
am29
Active Member
I think the PATH should be underground.. having to go up and down different levels makes it difficult and unappealing to people and with such a big development I'm sure it can be affordable if they dig into their profits just a little.
AlvinofDiaspar
Moderator
The retail wedge shaving a slice off the park for the "PATH ramp" is just weird. Not sure what it is for other than maximizing retail frontage.
AoD
AoD
44 North
Senior Member
I get why skybridges would be frowned upon for ground-level aesthetic concerns (cluttering the streetscape), or shadowing. But from an every day pedestrian perspective I don't see why it'd be all that bad when compared to an underground PATH.
For the most part the concept of PATH seems a bit counter-intuitive to pedestrianization and Jacobs' tenets, but surely bringing the system above ground vs below would do more to alleviate some of its drawbacks. Although sheltered, peds would be more in the open than if underground. They get to see what's going on, see the lake, we could incorporate nice landscaping, incorporate external architectural flair... it's arguably a lot better than underground PATH.
For the most part the concept of PATH seems a bit counter-intuitive to pedestrianization and Jacobs' tenets, but surely bringing the system above ground vs below would do more to alleviate some of its drawbacks. Although sheltered, peds would be more in the open than if underground. They get to see what's going on, see the lake, we could incorporate nice landscaping, incorporate external architectural flair... it's arguably a lot better than underground PATH.