[maestro]

Agreed. And I'm sure the developer knows this. Ask for 80 get 60, which I think is a better fit... Or until more land is assembled, we're talking about a complete overhaul.

60 is still extreme. Actually any tower of any height here is extreme. This building is part of one of the better heritage streetscapes you will find in Toronto. Let it be.

 

[buildup]

True Elm Street is very good.
If they could buy some of the connected properties to the North, which should be a requirement, then the tower could shift North onto Yonge which doesn't have any interesting structures there,

 

[maestro]

I don't really consider this proposal all that serious. It's pretty out there. If they are serious than they wouldn't have submitted if the properties along Yonge were available to them. I'm sure those have been assembled and already sold to a developer or the price tag is just insane. I suspect everyone is just trying to capitalize on the Eaton Chelsea redevelopment, the 389 Yonge proposal, and, to a lesser extent, Aura.

 

[isaidso]

Scary? I don't see how. Aura is taller, is your issue the size of the floorplate? Personally I'm tired of towers that take up entire blocks, they stink at street level.

Agree. I'm a little tired of these glass boxes but am warming up to this one. The floor plate to height ratio is eye catching while the oscillation up the entire height on both sides could look elegant. Strip either of those features out and it loses most of what makes it interesting.

I sense that there's a segment of the population that isn't comfortable with this type of density and scale as it's far beyond the what they were accustomed to growing up in the 1970s/1980s/1990s. Rather than make the city conform to their personal comfort level, perhaps they should let the big city be a big city and move further out? St. Clair might be more their cup of tea.

We're living in an age of 459m, 559m, 669m buildings. A 259m building just off Yonge is intimidating? Really?

 

[Lenser]

Way to condescend, saidso.

 

[Big Daddy]

I think everyone jinxed this project and that it's now gonna be approved with little revision

Not a chance - they haven't cut the height by a third yet - a mandatory step in Toronto's "planning" process.

 

[MisterF]

I have no idea what the Official Plan says about it, but I've always though that this block of Elm Street was one of the city's better heritage streetscapes. IMO, it's worthy of preserving both in style and scale. Squatting a skyscraper on top of a heritage building completely disrespects the dignity of the old building and streetscape and just strikes me as lazy design.

Agree. I'm a little tired of these glass boxes but am warming up to this one. The floor plate to height ratio is eye catching while the oscillation up the entire height on both sides could look elegant. Strip either of those features out and it loses most of what makes it interesting.

I sense that there's a segment of the population that isn't comfortable with this type of density and scale as it's far beyond the what they were accustomed to growing up in the 1970s/1980s/1990s. Rather than make the city conform to their personal comfort level, perhaps they should let the big city be a big city and move further out? St. Clair might be more their cup of tea.

We're living in an age of 459m, 559m, 669m buildings. A 259m building just off Yonge is intimidating? Really?

Having a high rise, high density downtown doesn't mean that every single street has to have skyscrapers on it. Every high rise city has low rise streets in the midst of their skyscraper cores, from New York to Sydney to Hong Kong. Singapore has block after block of low rise heritage area right next to the financial core. "Letting a big city be a big city" doesn't mean that skyscrapers go everywhere - it's actually the opposite. Mature big cities recognize that some low rise areas are worth preserving, even in the downtown core.

 

[JOAMA]

They already built Aura so when/if the Eaton Chelsea, 8 Elm and anyother tall proposals r built in this area it just gonna fill out the peak in the skyline that Aura already creates. I believe if they redesign the podium that it would be appropriate here.

 

[MisterF]

They already built Aura so when/if the Eaton Chelsea, 8 Elm and anyother tall proposals r built in this area it just gonna fill out the peak in the skyline that Aura already creates. I believe if they redesign the podium that it would be appropriate here.

Aura doesn't matter. It doesn't really affect the streetscape on Elm Street - it's in the background. There's nothing wrong with preserving even one block of one street as a low rise area surrounded by skyscrapers. That kind of thing exists in cities with far more skyscrapers than Toronto. As I said, Singapore has low rise heritage districts literally across the street from Aura-sized skyscrapers.

Besides, how do you redesign a podium that consists of a building that's already there?

 

[JOAMA]

Change the way the tower meets the heritage. But I do understand what ur saying

 

[MisterF]

Change the way the tower meets the heritage. But I do understand what ur saying

I just don't think that any design change will make a difference - it's still a 60 storey building in a 3 storey streetscape. It could very well get approved and that's fine, but it will change the character of Elm Street no matter what it looks like. Personally I like that little island of low rise heritage.

 

[ptbotrmpfn]

So a rough idea of how I figure this thing might look from the east side.... Sorry if there's plans and I missed it. But could be an interesting look.

 

[ptbotrmpfn]

Sorry I guess I missed a few floors.

 

[Waterloo_Guy]

I think all of the talk about height is somewhat off topic. From what I gather from previous posts, there are serious issues other than height that would prevent approval: tower separation, servicing, etc. Height doesn't seem to be the issue with this one.

 

[maestro]

Agree. I'm a little tired of these glass boxes but am warming up to this one. The floor plate to height ratio is eye catching while the oscillation up the entire height on both sides could look elegant. Strip either of those features out and it loses most of what makes it interesting.

I sense that there's a segment of the population that isn't comfortable with this type of density and scale as it's far beyond the what they were accustomed to growing up in the 1970s/1980s/1990s. Rather than make the city conform to their personal comfort level, perhaps they should let the big city be a big city and move further out? St. Clair might be more their cup of tea.

We're living in an age of 459m, 559m, 669m buildings. A 259m building just off Yonge is intimidating? Really?

There's more to a big city than just height. That's something the majority of those cities building those 459m, 559m, 669m towers don't quite get. This proposal is also several times denser than those towers; something that is definitely lost on your simplistic view of city building. IIRC, The Burg Khalifa is around 5 FAR. This one is over 40 FAR.

Millions of New Yorkers have been indirectly impacted by the tall towers on West 57th. Most won't know or care. A select few will appreciate the taller skyline. Others will noticed the increase in shadowing over Central Park and find it unfortunate. All this for multi-billionaires with more money that what to do with to have super lux real estate in New York they will seldom need.