[ushahid]

I find it tragic what has happened to this intersection. A year ago it was slated to become one of the city's greatest height peaks:

YSL: 344m
Chelsea: 2 x 285m
8 Elm: 259m
415 Yonge: 239m

Now, every single one of these proposals has been chopped or completely killed. I realize that some of them had legitimate issues, but why does reducing the height always have to be part of the solution?

And Aura got a height increase

 

[concrete_and_light]

It's gonna be fine everyone - Aura already looks massive on the skyline and YSL is going to be taller and even bigger. This area is going to look dramatic as hell no matter what.

 

[condovo]

^^^ If only height alone made for a good skyline. Aura is appalling and I wish it didn't look massive on the skyline. YSL doesn't look promising either. Nor does 8 Elm in its current iteration, whether 80 stories or 67. But height is the "Donald Trump" of UrbanToronto. Even if "height" shot someone on 5th Avenue, the fanboys here would still vote for it. To them, nothing else matters. Height, like Trump, is also a way to stick it to the "entitled elites" who care about stuff like design, density, shadowing, context, heritage, etc. Too complicated. Fake news. The only thing that's real is height, height, height!

 

[NeilV]

Does anyone know what the density of the second 8 Elm proposal actually was? I understand the original 45x proposal may have been a bit of a stretch, but I thought it was reduced significantly when they bought several adjacent properties.

 

[ProjectEnd]

Maybe a better question is why is height always a solution (to what?) - especially vis-a-vis this particular site.

AoD

Well height is the obvious solution to a tall, dense building on a small site (nothing you don't know already). I generally think FSI / FAR is a dumb metric from a bygone era. There are many ways to better-evaluate appropriate density for buildings on a given site, yet we rely on this one, silly number to determine what's 'good' and what's 'not'.

 

[Automation Gallery]

^^^ If only height alone made for a good skyline. Aura is appalling and I wish it didn't look massive on the skyline. YSL doesn't look promising either. Nor does 8 Elm in its current iteration, whether 80 stories or 67. But height is the "Donald Trump" of UrbanToronto. Even if height shot someone on 5th Avenue, the fanboys here would still vote for it. To them, nothing else matters. Height, like Trump, is also a way to stick it to the "entitled elites" who care about stuff like design, density, shadowing, context, heritage, etc. Too complicated. Fake news. The only thing that's real is height, height, height!

Ugh holy shite? Urban Toronto, Donald Trump, Height, Fake News, ........WTF, lol

 

[someMidTowner]

Ugh holy shite? Urban Toronto, Donald Trump, Height, Fake News, ........WTF, lol

You think that post is crazy, check out this prime post from yesterday!

Yup i learned one thing by being on UT, is that City Planning are obsessed to certain developers and architects when it comes to approvals in the planning process
So yes you can talk all you want on how projects meet the code to be taller and others don't
, but at the end of the day its a toss up of what they want approved or not

 

[UrbanAffair]

Well height is the obvious solution to a tall, dense building on a small site (nothing you don't know already). I generally think FSI / FAR is a dumb metric from a bygone era. There are many ways to better-evaluate appropriate density for buildings on a given site, yet we rely on this one, silly number to determine what's 'good' and what's 'not'.

Interesting thought, but what would be the alternative to FSI? Keep in mind, I am thinking about this from a valuation standpoint, so I am probably stuck with FSI regardless when determining property value. I am curious though, what metric would take its place when establishing appropriate density? I can only think of #ppl/sq km, which would seem even more archaic somehow.

In relation to 8 Elm, what do people think is the appropriate density?

 

[Mongo]

^^^ If only height alone made for a good skyline. Aura is appalling and I wish it didn't look massive on the skyline. YSL doesn't look promising either. Nor does 8 Elm in its current iteration, whether 80 stories or 67. But height is the "Donald Trump" of UrbanToronto. Even if "height" shot someone on 5th Avenue, the fanboys here would still vote for it. To them, nothing else matters. Height, like Trump, is also a way to stick it to the "entitled elites" who care about stuff like design, density, shadowing, context, heritage, etc. Too complicated. Fake news. The only thing that's real is height, height, height!

Wow, quite the straw-man there.

Speaking for myself, height is only one of a number of qualities I look for in a proposed downdown skyscraper, along with design, context, and burden on infrastructure. But ALL ELSE BEING EQUAL, a reduction in height is still a net negative for me.

 

[ushahid]

Toronto needs to do 2 things, get over its fear of height(shadows, FSI, CLotheline effect etc.) and take strict measures against the mass producing condo builders who don't give a beep about architecture.

 

[rbt]

Toronto needs to do 2 things, get over its fear of height(shadows, FSI, CLotheline effect etc.) and take strict measures against the mass producing condo builders who don't give a beep about architecture.

I'll vote against any politician who enables the streets of Toronto to become as dark as the streets of New York. A giant wall of tall buildings doesn't make the city nice for much of anything except a 2 week visit every few years.

 

[ushahid]

want sunshine, go to beaches, or live in suburbs.

 

[interchange42]

want sunshine, go to beaches, or live in suburbs.

Want some respect on UT? Stop treating Toronto like it's a fetish object upon which to project Blade Runner fantasies, and realize that it's a real, complex, growing-faster-than-it-can-handle city with a multitude of pressures that it's trying to balance.

42

 

[ushahid]

Not projecting any fantasies, just want Toronto to have better architecture without any sacrifice. several beautiful projects are shot down each year because of stupid FSI and other regulations.

 

[marcus_a_j]

Greater building height and density does not equate to better architecture (just have to look a few blocks north to see that), much like beautiful skyline postcards do not equate to a livable city.