Also aren't these planned for the south side of the area? These will help buffer the distillery from some of the noise of the expressway and the rail lines. I to have no problem with the scale, providing the glass is of a high enough quality.
 
When one roams the narrow lanes of the Distillery District you are hemmed in by old buildings on either side. The occasional glimpse of a sleek condo tower nearbye will be a reminder that the district is connected to the city, and I think of that as appropriate. Gooderham & Worts distillery was always a brash commercial enterprise itself, not a rarified environment for academic contemplation set apart from the hustle and bustle of the world of Mammon.
 
When one roams the narrow lanes of the Distillery District you are hemmed in by old buildings on either side. The occasional glimpse of a sleek condo tower nearbye will be a reminder that the district is connected to the city, and I think of that as appropriate. Gooderham & Worts distillery was always a brash commercial enterprise itself, not a rarified environment for academic contemplation set apart from the hustle and bustle of the world of Mammon.
Click to expand...

Are condo towers the only thing that define Toronto now? Do we need a reminder of where we are? I think the District can feel connected without adding massive glass condo towers.
 
The Distillery District isn't a monastic retreat, it is a commercial venture.
 
Also aren't these planned for the south side of the area? These will help buffer the distillery from some of the noise of the expressway and the rail lines. I to have no problem with the scale, providing the glass is of a high enough quality.
Click to expand...
You can buffer the expressway and rail lines without going up 48 storeys. Also keep in mind that once the city approves a certain height it's next to impossible to deny that height because they don't like the glass or the architectural style.
 
So commercial ventures do not have to adhere to good planning? Anything goes?
 
The Distillery District isn't a monastic retreat, it is a commercial venture.
Click to expand...

I don't see why that matters. You could allow anything, anywhere, based on that reasoning.
 
We can all feel comfortable with some urban context but plopping down a 50 story building in an area with buildings a fifth of the size is a bit unnecessary. There is no reason for a 40-50 story tower here. Whats wrong with something along the lines of 15 stories here. This just screams cash grab from the developer.
 
Having been allowed to develop the former distillery as a money-making shopping destination, Cityscape now intend to develop the rest of their land as a series of money-making condo developments. I see more logic than contradiction in that. Pretending that the one half of their business plan needs to be defended from the other half is irrational, particularly when, at public meetings, residents have welcomed the tall, slim towers over lower bulkier alternatives.
 
Having been allowed to develop the former distillery as a money-making shopping destination, Cityscape now intend to develop the rest of their land as a series of money-making condo developments. I see more logic than contradiction in that. Pretending that the one half of their business plan needs to be defended from the other half is irrational, particularly when, at public meetings, residents have welcomed the tall, slim towers over lower bulkier alternatives.
Click to expand...

I don't have a problem with them wanting to make money. It's what they want to build to make their money.

I don't know what other options they proposed at public meetings to the residents, so I can't really comment on that - who knows what the design of the shorter towers were like.

The city turned down Harry Stinson's 80 storey money-making condo tower downtown, on property he purchased, because of the shadows it would cast on Nathan Philips Square.

Why approve these towers in the Distillery?

How about a 90 storey condo tower at Brunswick and Bloor. It's a commercial intersection afterall...why not?
 
the residents didnt seem to have a problem with this ,besides it will expand our skyline eastward .hopefully the city milks this one for sec 37 $.plus they are very interesting looking towers.
 
Yes, why not? To argue otherwise is to adopt the reasoning (if you can call it that) of the Yonge-Eglinton anti-Minto nimbys.
 
Yes, why not? To argue otherwise is to adopt the reasoning (if you can call it that) of the Yonge-Eglinton anti-Minto nimbys.
Click to expand...

How?

There are already buildings of a similar scale to the Minto towers at Yonge and Eglinton. There is nothing approaching 90 storeys at Brunswick and Bloor.

Just because one feels a certain building doesn't fit in a certain area doesn't make them a NIMBY.

What's the point of the city approving anything then...why have a design panel...why bother with any of it? Any developer should be allowed to do whatever they want. As long as they're making money that's all that matters!
 
Wow. Now someone's comparing this to Minto. I was waiting for that. Yonge-Eglinton is a high-rise main interesection, with a subway right there. The Gooderham and Worts it is not.
 
So why shouldn't Cherry and the Gardiner be allowed to develop that way? Goderham and Worts is not a park, it's not public space, its a private commercial shopping area. It's a pedestrian shopping plaza, a touristy power centre, only with old buildings, not new ones. I don't see why it should be treated as somehow sacred.

And actually, I was comparing Brunswick and Bloor to Yonge & Eglinton. I wouldn't oppose a tall building there either - major commercial street, subway, no impact on parks or public spaces...
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top