I am not quite sure why the argument for a building that is more in keeping with its surrounding, means that we are treating the area as 'sacred'.

The area should be treated like every area of the city: planning and zoning that is in keeping with the nature and mass of the surroundings.

Whether a 50 story building is improper in an area of low level historical buildings is certainly debatable, on a purely planning level. What this debate is not, is a false choice or argument between this proposal and 'sacredness' and 'nimbyism'.
 
By that token, there would be no tall buildings in Yorkville, because they are not in keeping with the nature and mass their surroundings.

Nor would two buildings that have been held up on this forum in recent days as examples of what Toronto should be doing - St. Mary Axe and the London Council building - have been built if they were required to be in context with their surroundings, for they most assuredly are not in keeping with the nature and mass of their surroundings.
 
Done right there isn't any reason why old and new, short and tall can't co-exist. How about London?

kingsx4.jpg
 
... especially since, in the Distillery District, they're different phases of the same development and the one will pump money into the other.
 
That picture is a great example of what i'd prefer. Those buildings are perhaps 20 stories. I think it would just be better to provide a transition of heights instead of placing a 50 story tower right next to a 2 story structure.
 
"By that token, there would be no tall buildings in Yorkville, because they are not in keeping with the nature and mass their surroundings.

Nor would two buildings that have been held up on this forum in recent days as examples of what Toronto should be doing - St. Mary Axe and the London Council building - have been built if they were required to be in context with their surroundings, for they most assuredly are not in keeping with the nature and mass of their surroundings."

There is little doubt that the tall buildings in Yorkville are changing the very nature of the 'village' that once was. If you want to change the nature of the Distillery, tall buildings will certainly do it.

I am not sure what the St. Mary Axe building is or what the London Council building is but if you mean London City Hall, I am not sure what context it is violating. London City Hall appears to be on the waterfront in an area largely devoid of other buildings.
 
St Mary Axe is Swiss Re.

Yorkville wasn't a "village" when I lived on Scollard in 1977 - it was well on the way to being a crass commercial district even then. Perhaps the last days of the hippy era in the late 1960's was the last gasp of the "village" of Yorkville.
 
I think the debate is complicated by the fact that the distillery district is not really a district at all. It is a commercial property with an immediate context consisting primarily of wasteland, car dealerships and highway on ramps. What then is the appropriate "contextual" built form?
 
Other than the inconvenience of having to digitally remove the towers from wide shots of period films, I don't see this as a problem at all.

This site sat neglected, bought and sold and bought again for decades. Cityscape finally pumped some life into it and they did it quickly. I for one think they've earned the right to earn a buck.

Johnny come lately debates about world heritage, historical context et al aside... the simple fact is the site was rotting.

A new neighbourhood is birthing next door (W. Donlands) and the so called district now hosts great theatre, good beer and lots of fake cobblestones.

Let's let it evolve and create a crazy new/historical collision that links the next two brand (grand?) new neighbourhoods in the city (E. Bayfront being the other).

P.S. it was a booze factory
 
This site sat neglected, bought and sold and bought again for decades. Cityscape finally pumped some life into it and they did it quickly. I for one think they've earned the right to earn a buck.

Johnny come lately debates about world heritage, historical context et al aside... the simple fact is the site was rotting.
Click to expand...

Decades? It was in operation till 1990. Since then it's been the top location for film shoots. It wasn't just sitting there rotting.

I have no problem with Cityscape trying to make money. That doesn't mean they should be allowed to build whatever they want there. The city routinely will turn down applications for development for a variety of reasons. We don't have many continuous historical districts...why drop huge point towers in this one? Surely the city could've asked for more restrained development and offered the developer some perks.
 
Done right there isn't any reason why old and new, short and tall can't co-exist. How about London?
Click to expand...
London has all kinds of areas where high rises aren't permitted.
 
Apologies SD... "after 17 years..." OK?

I'm older and thus a bit more impatient.
 
I find youth generally more impatient. With age, one tends to want to see things done properly or not at all, rather than done quickly for the sake of seeing it finished.
 
Apologies SD... "after 17 years..." OK?

I'm older and thus a bit more impatient.
Click to expand...

Well, it opened in 2003 so that's 13 years. In the meantime it was used as a location for movie shoots, one of the top locations on the continent...I don't think you can really say it's just been sitting there rotting.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top