The existing buildings along this stretch of King St. form one of the most attractive streetscapes we have in Toronto. Invariably, these buildings are 4-5 stories tall. If you plop something twice that height next to them, you make the street less coherent and you make the "old" form less relevant. Of course the new heights will be used as a precedent to justify their becoming the standard for new construction, or even a stepping stone to greater heights. After a while of this, the "old" stock along King will look more and more like the remnants of the past which need to be replaced with something newer and larger. If this is what you want, then there's no problem.
So absolute adherence to presidents set X-number of years ago is the only way to create a coherent streetscape? Is the city not something which changes organically over time, keeping some aspects while jettisoning others? I find it interesting that this modest proposal is receiving so much flack from some members on UT.
You argue that this 'old stock' of buildings on King will inevitably be lost in a sea of taller buildings, yet in other places where such structures have gone up, they seem to knit quite well into the existing built form. Furthermore, the language you use to describe this urban evolution takes a deleterious tone, suggesting that that the new may never harmonize with the old. Buildings such as the CCBR or the current proposal for 134 Peter St. confirm that this is just not true.
You also describe the 'destructive' results of this transformation as leaving only "the remnants of the past," yet this anarchronistic form seems to be exactly what you currently argue for. These buildings
are the remnants of the past and as such, deserve to be treated with respect and appreciation- embracing the past
is just as important as constructing the new. One should, however, remember that this is a balancing act. BobBob is correct in stating that we should preserve our heritage and respect the existing King St. form, but not at the expense of the present since much of the city
has changed and evolved since then. Were this a building which was clearly out of context (i.e. 30 or so stories), then I could see what was so egregious, but as it stands, the current
scheme proposes buildings which continue the low-rise nature of the street while giving a jaunty nod to the structures of the past.
If you wish to complain about something, how about questioning the rather bland styling of the structures, or their lack of color? Or would something too avant-garde set further precedents for interesting design and innovative material use and therefore destroy the 'attractive' homogeneous streetscape which you and others so dearly cling to?
So, yes, this is what I want, and no, there isn't a problem.
(Sorry if I come off a little harsh here, I just hate it when people expect the city to stay in a state of stasis for all time - your post was well worded BobBob).
