ksun

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Dec 14, 2013
Messages
1,805
Reaction score
239
I'd prefer more shorter towers spread out. The smaller they are the faster they fill up and new ones need to get built. As long as they are around 200 meters it feels pretty well the same at street level. Let's focus more on expanding the footprint of downtown by filling up Yonge to Jarvis with 50 storey buildings. More buildings is generally more impressive than fewer slightly taller ones. There is more streetscape to enjoy that way. Looking straight up is fun for some people but for most looking straight ahead is more enjoyable and more practical.

50 storey? I don't think there is a single 50 storey tower between Yonge and Jarvis.
 

Southcore

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jun 5, 2011
Messages
620
Reaction score
86
Very interesting, I wonder what they have coming up that is expiring soon ... and 2017 probably isn't enough time for a large tower (well maybe late 2017). This space is available in Sun Life building and the Bremner tower, so they could go there short term ... 400K is available in Oxford place I believe too.

If your experience though would they take up that much space without being the anchor tenant? Or do they not really care about these kinds of things?
 

taal

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
May 19, 2007
Messages
6,715
Reaction score
200
Lots of downtown jobs in the 600k TD airport campus. I could see those eventually moving back.

Very much doubt it .. they move these jobs out for a reason, I don't see why they'd move them back ... I don't think the TD airport campus jobs would really be viable (required downtown) now the large center in Markham, that I don't know, a lot of technical IT jobs there (as opposed to just say data entry or other more mundane tasks) ... so if they think they'll face problems attracting new young talent ... maybe ... but honestly there are so many tech jobs in Markham already I doubt this is an issue.
 

taal

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
May 19, 2007
Messages
6,715
Reaction score
200
If your experience though would they take up that much space without being the anchor tenant? Or do they not really care about these kinds of things?

Its funny you mention that I was thinking about just that (i.e. given they wouldn't be the anchor tenant, would they be OK with that) I think it really depends on what they plan on moving out.

My only hope is this leads to more jobs downtown (regardless of where) but a new tower would be great for sure, as opposed to jobs being lost downtown. The first short term request was for on a subway line, (though VCC does qualify for that, but in the longer term).

Time will tell !
 

isaidso

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
May 24, 2007
Messages
1,996
Reaction score
2,115
Let's focus more on expanding the footprint of downtown by filling up Yonge to Jarvis with 50 storey buildings. More buildings is generally more impressive than fewer slightly taller ones.

I feel the exact opposite. I'd much rather have a few buildings that make one stand back and take notice than a sea of filler. The turtle wins the race. The race to fill the downtown up with forgettable buildings is a fool's game. It might get full, but to what end?

Besides, a building needs to be at least 200m these days for its height to get someone's attention. Even 200m is becoming common place these days and people are increasingly looking to 300m, 400m, 500m, etc.

Of course it's all moot if we don't have great design.
 
Last edited:

taal

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
May 19, 2007
Messages
6,715
Reaction score
200
There's been chatter of Waterhouse leaving Bay & Bloor for something downtown (and thereby closer to the GO lines).

Makes a ton of sense, I believe they occupy all or most of 77 Bloor West (which is about 350K) ?
 

Southcore

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jun 5, 2011
Messages
620
Reaction score
86
If they care about being the anchor then, and they have a little bit of time (2017), 16 York is perfect (close to GO/Path). 156 Front and Oxford Place are too far out, and I guess Union Centre as well?

If they don't care about being the anchor then 1 York or Bremner Tower would suffice.
 

innsertnamehere

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
Mar 8, 2010
Messages
17,678
Reaction score
17,694
City:
Toronto
All new builds would take roughly just as long. 2017 is probably achievable if they move fast. Union centre would maybe be a bit longer due to its complex site.
 

ksun

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Dec 14, 2013
Messages
1,805
Reaction score
239
I feel the exact opposite. I'd much rather have a few buildings that make one stand back and take notice than a sea of filler. The turtle wins the race. The race to fill the downtown up with forgettable buildings is a fool's game. It might get full, but to what end?

Besides, a building needs to be at least 200m these days for its height to get someone's attention. Even 200m is becoming common place these days and people are increasingly looking to 300m, 400m, 500m, etc.

Of course it's all moot if we don't have great design.

in any city, most (95%+) buildings are forgettable. Buildings are essentially for people to live or work in. The beauty is just an added benefit.
Despite the purpose of this forum, I think making better use of land (filling the vacant lots with buildings with a purpose) is more important than to have a couple of really impressive skyscrapers. The city is for people to live in, not just to look at at the end of the day.
 

isaidso

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
May 24, 2007
Messages
1,996
Reaction score
2,115
in any city, most (95%+) buildings are forgettable.

That's not even close to being true. I was born and raised in London. Even outside central London a good percentage of the buildings were built to be both functional and beautiful. In much of Europe, it's the same. And the argument that modern cities aren't capable of the same is utter rubbish and a cop out.

Buildings are essentially for people to live or work in. The beauty is just an added benefit.

That's an excruciatingly Canadian mentality; one that can't die quick enough. It's also a mentality that's a result of Toronto's provincial blue collar past. As Toronto grows in wealth and sophistication that mentality will fall by the way side.

The idea that we're only bright enough to build function into our cities is primitive and depressing. Cities need to be BOTH functional AND attractive. If people didn't value beauty we'd not bother with art, design, or fashion at all. I could only live in a place like that if I were born blind.
 
Last edited:

arvelomcquaig

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jan 17, 2010
Messages
467
Reaction score
46
City:
Toronto
I just got back from a few days in Manhattan and it was astonishing how ubiquitous architectural beauty is there. Being there feels like an outlandish dream. I can't fathom how so much work and care went into every detail of 90% of buildings. It was painfully beautiful. I shouldn't go there anymore because it really hurts my Torontonian pride.

It made me wonder: why is there this crass, philistinic approach to architecture/development here/now, while in the past so much more effort seems to have gone into our buildings? Why does the profit motive manifest as perfunctory expedience now when older architecture seems to have been so much more meticulously crafted?
 
Last edited:

salsa

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Sep 27, 2013
Messages
8,814
Reaction score
9,730
^I hear ya! I was also thoroughly impressed by the urban parks in Manhattan, compared to Toronto. It hurts.
 

Uptowner

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Mar 6, 2014
Messages
114
Reaction score
18
50 storey? I don't think there is a single 50 storey tower between Yonge and Jarvis.

Well Casa must be very close and so will Chaz and Casa II be. X2 is one storey short and Yonge and Rich will be close while 88 Scott will be well over. Then there is One Bloor East, L Tower and Massey which will technically be east of the street and sidewalk. But I take your point that there isn't much between those streets. I'm just relating that I'd like to see the changes that are happening happen even faster. The larger the footprint of very busy streets the more exciting a city is for me when comparing comparably economically developed cities (ie not Dhaka and Chicago).

I feel the exact opposite. I'd much rather have a few buildings that make one stand back and take notice than a sea of filler. The turtle wins the race. The race to fill the downtown up with forgettable buildings is a fool's game. It might get full, but to what end?

Besides, a building needs to be at least 200m these days for its height to get someone's attention. Even 200m is becoming common place these days and people are increasingly looking to 300m, 400m, 500m, etc.

Of course it's all moot if we don't have great design.

I agree its nice if you can get great architecture up and down a building but the main thing is how many people it can hold and how does it meet the street. The more people the better and then excellent commercial space and an impressive podium are what makes it work for tall buildings. If in addition to that the top of the building is clean and simple then you are on your way to a successful design.

Also, I don't necessarily disagree about heights. My point was just that I care about street level and after about 200m (that is just a rough estimate based on my own experience/perception) you really have to pay attention to notice the difference when you are walking by a building.


The idea that we're only bright enough to build function into our cities is primitive and depressing. Cities need to be BOTH functional AND attractive. If people didn't value beauty we'd not bother with art, design, or fashion at all. I could only live in a place like that if I were born blind.

I agree with this point very much but instead of wasting the money on beauty 195m in the air why don't we take the money spent up there and spend it down at street level? Again, podiums/street frontage and sidewalks are what counts as long as the top is simple and inoffensive.
 
Last edited:

Top