Call me crazy, but I'd suggest that arguably the most important residential development (architecturally) in the history of Toronto is Bjarke Ingels King project by Westbank.... not exactly tall (but still very dense). It is the kind of building that is a game changer for a city, will attract global design/architectural attention and tourism and really puts the city on the maps in terms of design innovation. Lots of international press even in the design stages.
 
condovo said:
^^^ So, Toronto's potential is measured in building height? I think the ones beating a dead horse are the height fetishists. I mean, no one, other than the height queens on UrbanToronto, measures the success of a particular project, or the success of a city in general, in terms of height - not architects, not planners, not developers.
Click to expand...
I know of a few optical stores in your area if you’d like... why do you guys assume we all want hieght and are some how obsessed. What on earth gives you this assumption that anyone fighting for a design must mean they are only into talll buildings? Don’t ever judge your fellow UT users and make unfair assessments based on what you think of their comments. thanks Yet again in advance. I love all arcutecture that has style. One floor alll the way to what ever we are able to create. My appreciations are not limited to supertalls.
 
At 80 storeys or 67 storeys, this building was too tall for the area.

I'm someone who is generally supportive of tall heights. There is however, appropriate places for them and this is not one.
 
WislaHD said:
At 80 storeys or 67 storeys, this building was too tall for the area.

I'm someone who is generally supportive of tall heights. There is however, appropriate places for them and this is not one.
Click to expand...

Downtown in the 4th largest city in North America, two blocks from 2 subway stations.
If this isn't a suitable location for a tall building, what is??
 
Big Daddy said:
Downtown in the 4th largest city in North America, two blocks from 2 subway stations.
If this isn't a suitable location for a tall building, what is??
Click to expand...
Right at a subway station. The density at this non-subway station corner is already going to be incredible.

42
 
Mike in TO said:
Call me crazy, but I'd suggest that arguably the most important residential development (architecturally) in the history of Toronto is Bjarke Ingels King project by Westbank.... not exactly tall (but still very dense). It is the kind of building that is a game changer for a city, will attract global design/architectural attention and tourism and really puts the city on the maps in terms of design innovation. Lots of international press even in the design stages.
Click to expand...

Ironically the sales there appear to be quite slow due to the cost premium associated with such a complicated design, unless my info is outdated.

Could it be that our market dominated by the specuvestor crowd doesn’t give a damn about good architecture and instead is fooled by glossy brochures, green glass, spandrel windows and false promises of cash flow?

I hope I’m wrong but can we ever expect to see a 432 Park Avenue or a Zaha Hadid (firm) in our skyline?
 
Big Daddy said:
Downtown in the 4th largest city in North America, two blocks from 2 subway stations.
If this isn't a suitable location for a tall building, what is??
Click to expand...
You write as if all of downtown is a monolith with the same considerations.

Elm Street is a quieter street despite being smack in the hubbub of Yonge + Dundas. The block is already going to receive massive change and addition of density in the adjacent Eaton Chelsea site. The lot where this tower is proposed is very small. It is a legitimate concern that this height and density will have disproportionate impact on the streetscape and local traffic compared to a more conservative development.

As it stands, Elm Street is one of my favourite little pockets in the area and a good respite from the busyness of Yonge and the back-door loading area that is Edward Street. I think the Chelsea Eaton redevelopment will improve on the streetscape. I don't think this development as proposed would. If you want to see Elm Street transform to something like Mercer Street, then that is just a difference of opinion between you and I.

It just goes back to my original point. There is a time and place for such densities.
 
WislaHD said:
You write as if all of downtown is a monolith with the same considerations.

Elm Street is a quieter street despite being smack in the hubbub of Yonge + Dundas. The block is already going to receive massive change and addition of density in the adjacent Eaton Chelsea site. The lot where this tower is proposed is very small. It is a legitimate concern that this height and density will have disproportionate impact on the streetscape and local traffic compared to a more conservative development.

As it stands, Elm Street is one of my favourite little pockets in the area and a good respite from the busyness of Yonge and the back-door loading area that is Edward Street. I think the Chelsea Eaton redevelopment will improve on the streetscape. I don't think this development as proposed would. If you want to see Elm Street transform to something like Mercer Street, then that is just a difference of opinion between you and I.

It just goes back to my original point. There is a time and place for such densities.
Click to expand...

As you said, this location is very close to Yonge and Dundas, so it's only a matter of time until this site does eventually get developed to have more density. These low density pockets near downtown aren't going to last forever, it's not sustainable.
 
Miles Gilbert Horton said:
Ironically the sales there appear to be quite slow due to the cost premium associated with such a complicated design, unless my info is outdated.
Click to expand...

If you're referring to King West, they are in fact not struggling with sales, and the cost premium is more closely associated with the fact that the developer believes it can hit those prices.
 
Yegger said:
Not sure where to put this, but the OMB is being brought back by the Province

https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/20..._id=OntarioNews&utm_content=OMBOntarioChanges

knowing the history of the OMB, I wouldn't be shocked if they approved this planning nightmare of a submission
Click to expand...

It could certainly go badly, but it is worth noting that the OMB both saved developments that represent good planning principles from local NIMBYs (including NIMBY councillors), and foisted badly planned projects on the city.

Like many things, the OMB in its previous form was neither all good nor all bad, though I'm certainly interested to see which of those former realities its resuscitation will hue more closely to.
 
Yegger said:
Not sure where to put this, but the OMB is being brought back by the Province

https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/20..._id=OntarioNews&utm_content=OMBOntarioChanges

knowing the history of the OMB, I wouldn't be shocked if they approved this planning nightmare of a submission
Click to expand...
This project is already being heard under the old OMB rules.. The new OMB rules were for project only proposed after the law came into force.

The whole reason this thread was revived recently was because it was moving through the old OMB system.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top