[Bibi L]

Current building is on the bottom left.

No comment on the design but that is a great location for residential! Talk about city-living!

Yup, city-living indeed!
Amazing location, literally surrounded by everything!

 

[Doppleganger]

It's going to ruin one of the iconic vantage point from Front and Church. This is one of the situations where we need Vancouver's view cone policy.

If by 'iconic' we mean an ensemble of buildings that, by virtue of their siting and having remained little changed over the decades, in other words, we have simply gotten used to their being there, then sure, I'll go with 'iconic'. But aside from the Allen Lambert Galleria, and based on design and use of materials, I've never found either of the two towers that comprise Brookfield Place or the shorter glass building at 33 Yonge St., particularly remarkable, either up close or from any other vantage point. Furthermore, if we had used this as the guiding principle anytime in the last 50 years to protect say, the views of the Royal York Hotel or the CN Tower, arguably two of downtown's most iconic structures, then much of the financial district and downtown core as we know it today could never have been built. In a vibrant and growing city, views are constantly changing, with some disappearing while others are being created...that is as it should be. Unfortunately, the tower proposed for this 'iconic' site is about as boring and unremarkable as most of its neighbours, and that is a shame and yet another opportunity lost. As for adopting Vancouver's view cones, it should be noted that Vancouver city council recently voted to amend their 35-year-old policy, eliminating 14 of the 38 cones, while simultaneously loosening some of the restrictions they have placed on that city's development.

 

[UtakataNoAnnex]

Seems to replace one ill-fitting awkward component with another here... /sigh

 

[Amare]

I think the problem that a lot of us are having does not have to do with a tower being built on this site (there was always a plan for a 3rd tower to built on this site until the early 90s recession), but more to do with the scrap heap being proposed.

If the design actually looked half decent, most of us wouldnt have an issue here. It's the fact that Brookfield is going for bottom dweller garbage that's raising alarms.

 

[Bibi L]

I think the problem that a lot of us are having does not have to do with a tower being built on this site (there was always a plan for a 3rd tower to built on this site until the early 90s recession), but more to do with the scrap heap being proposed.

If the design actually looked half decent, most of us wouldnt have an issue here. It's the fact that Brookfield is going for bottom dweller garbage that's raising alarms.

The 90s recession saw many buildings cancelled in Toronto. Here’s a list of some. (Not in order)

1. World Trade Centre, a proposed condo and office complex. Two condo towers, three office towers. The two condo towers were built in 1990. Thus the name “Residences of the World Trade Centre”, however, the office portion was never built. The land of which the offices would have been built now sits Pinnacle Centre. A 4 tower complex completed in the 2000s and 2010s.

2. Bay Adelaide Centre, originally proposed sometime in the 80s, had a much different design than the current and final design. It had a pointy rooftop postmodern type design. The original design was obviously never built, and had many design changes until finally it was completed in the 2000s/2010s with a much different design.

3. Pier 27, Avro Group, the developer of 25 The Esplanade, King’s Landing, and several other buildings in the St. Lawrence neighbourhood, also had plans in the late 80s to build on the site where the current Pier 27 condos sit. Probably cancelled due to the 90s recession? Proposed around that time.

4. Simcoe Place’s second tower, there were plans to build another twin tower of Simcoe Place.

5. Empress & Yonge, a two tower office complex, never built.

Some of these are not 100% confirmed to be cancelled due to the 90s recession. Just happened to be proposed right before. And assuming they were cancelled due to it.

 

[Doppleganger]

The city can rightly impose height/shadowing restrictions on buildings proposed near parks, schools and hospitals. Similarly, it should also be able to demand much higher design standards for buildings fronting its most important public spaces. Why it doesn't, or can't, goes a long way to explaining how Toronto has become a city awash in mostly banal and uninspiring highrise architecture.