Wow this seems further along that I had imagined. Why do we have to cram all the 'big' towers in one small area rather than spread them out a bit. In addition how many interesting things have been built and destroyed on this one spot in the last 100 years?
 
Lot of mid rise buildings and even a high rise were blown from existence to complete Commerce Court.
 
interchange42 said:
5ho doesn't get what @ptbotrmpfn? Some in this crowd foolishly cling to professional studies predicated upon accepted standards that are applied consistently across the city? Sounds like uncommon sense to me.

42
Click to expand...

How do these “standards” decide it's ok to put a shadow on some people but five feet further it’s unacceptable? If shadows are so offensive, why do we allow them at all? And if we decide shadows are inevitable what’s the criteria for acceptable or unacceptable shadows? Sounds more like a tool to justify changes to a development when no other justification can be found.
 
The more I see this plan the more I like it. The low slab buildings being replaced are street killers and the courtyard itself, though embodying a somewhat generic modernist elegance--is barren and underused. (Much like NPS for the same reason.) The new tower is sleek, angular and even a tad majestic. It will add a sharp, jaunty profile to the CBD from certain angles, and will breath life into old Detroi--er--King and Bay.

Bring it on, and please don't let the Felix Unger style fussbudgets at DRB defang this bold proposal because of some pathetic ephemeral shadows that only urban planners and desperate local politicians seem to get the vapours over.
 
Big Daddy said:
How do these “standards” decide it's ok to put a shadow on some people but five feet further it’s unacceptable? If shadows are so offensive, why do we allow them at all? And if we decide shadows are inevitable what’s the criteria for acceptable or unacceptable shadows? Sounds more like a tool to justify changes to a development when no other justification can be found.
Click to expand...

It's quite simple. City planning guidelines will not allow any new shadows to be cast on a number of "tier one" parks downtown. St. James Park is a tier one park and any increase in height or movement to the east will add new shadows to that.

https://www1.toronto.ca/city_of_tor..._design/files/pdf/Tall-buildings-Final-a3.pdf

oK2ov80.jpg



Don't like it? Go to City Planning and/or your Councillor and get it changed.
 
Yeah, I wonder if that's a render optics problem. The building doesn't look overly large on the siteplan maps posted upthread, and yet it's as tall as FCP. OTOH if it really is that squat, it'll be a heckuva lot more energy efficient!
 
It's 30,000 square feet per floor so it's going to be pretty fat. The dimensions and corner design don't help either. It's not a square of equal sides or a cereal box with a narrow side and a wide side.
 
ChesterCopperpot said:
City planning guidelines will not allow any new shadows to be cast on a number of "tier one" parks downtown.
Click to expand...

Gee that's a drag, most of the financial district has no height limits, but with that clause anything built over 300 meters will always be under the microscope from city planning to get approvals:eek:
 
Lenser said:
Sure looks awkward in that lakeside render. An unfortunate angle.
Click to expand...

It's like queuing for the chunky guy to finish up at the urinal and realizing he has no idea his shirt is un-tucked in the back.

I don't see anything sleek about this tower; It's too short to achieve the undulating affect, which I presume was the goal.
 
You really have to give it to Toronto's architects, developers, planners and regulators. Together, they've managed to capture our civic vision of mediocrity in one XL-sized anticlimax.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top