88drums

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jan 25, 2015
Messages
150
Reaction score
160
We're not building an Entertainment District here either. We are replacing one (a mediocre one that peaked 10 plus years ago) with an affordable, mid range, high density (perhaps too high) residential district within walking distance of a major employment district.

Loads of people agree that the ED has been sanitized but its name is apt as ever. It's still packed with bars and restaurants, let alone the bulk of TO's major destinations -- TIFF, Roy Thompson Hall, the Royal Alex, Ripley's, the Dome, the Tower, the list goes on.

Damn, that Peter St street wall! So good!

Also, the Hyatt is the best looking building down here. Put a designation on it.

Wouldn't go that far, but it's an architectural guilty pleasure for me too, and it's starting to look more appealing against its new grey curtainwall backdrop. Although the street level is still a mess. I at least hope it doesn't get redeveloped until we stop putting up unrelenting walls of glass along King W sidewalks (e.g. its proposed new next door neighbours to the west)
 

Froggy

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 4, 2015
Messages
659
Reaction score
1,122
This morning, biking by:
IMG_20170725_084158800.jpg
 

Attachments

  • IMG_20170725_084158800.jpg
    IMG_20170725_084158800.jpg
    1.2 MB · Views: 214

innsertnamehere

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
Mar 8, 2010
Messages
17,165
Reaction score
16,127
City:
Toronto
really, really don't understand planning's insistence on the 157m height. Even the stuff that comes in slightly over is promptly chopped to 157m.
 

Miscreant

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Oct 9, 2011
Messages
3,616
Reaction score
1,793
Yep--agreed about the heights. It just looks blocky and poorly planned. A bit disappointing.
 

maestro

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
7,217
Reaction score
2,170
really, really don't understand planning's insistence on the 157m height. Even the stuff that comes in slightly over is promptly chopped to 157m.

What exactly would more height really do? The taple top effect will eventually be only seen from a distance with further intensification. You're still going to have the same blocky fat designs and street levels. I'm trying to think of recent proposals. For the most part, they weren't redesigned from skinnier to fattier. They just had their tops knocked off.

BTW, the maximum allowable girth of 8100 square feet is freakin' large. Doesn't help either when squeezed on a slighter large lot.
 

isaidso

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
May 24, 2007
Messages
1,951
Reaction score
2,004
What exactly would more height really do?

Nothing so planning should leave it alone. None of these were originally proposed significantly taller. This is a case of chopping for the sake of chopping. Absolutely pointless.
 

maestro

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
7,217
Reaction score
2,170
It's not nothing if it also includes a reduction in density or limit shadowing on a public asset. I agree it doesn't make much sense if its just a redistribution of density to the lower floors to suit an arbitrary height envelope.

More height alone isn't going to improve the forgettable architecture or the overbearing urban form . It will only improve the skyline aesthetic that is best seen from a distance.
 

Top