scarberiankhatru
Senior Member
Like Mississauga's Absolut?
Like Mississauga's Absolut?
"What the City wants" is constantly changing. What they wanted in the 1950's and '60's was towers surrounded by lots of breathing space, now they want "meet the sidewalk", and one day it'll be something different yet again. Fashions in planning come and go but good design - the TD Centre surrounded by all that currently unfashionable breathing space, for instance - survives.
Yes, yes, we know US, you like the design of the building, even if it could be anywhere else in the city, and you like the obviously exposed parking lot. You've made that point at least a few dozen times in this thread alone.
Yes, yes, we know Salvius, you don't like the design of the building...
US can have his say just like you can, even a dozen times or more, like you can, and I'd say right now the not-in-favour side is winning, so why sound like a schoolgirl whose pigtails are tied too tight?
This thread reads like a bunch of kids standing on across from each other on a playground screaming "Yeah?" "Yeah!" "Yeah?" "Yeah!" at each other. This latest bit about 'what the city wants' is more oversimplification which a bunch of you have jumped all over as if it were the full uncomplicated truth. The building of projects like this are devilishly complex with many competing rights demanding to be taken into account.
The City can't just stop every aspect of every project they don't like, and developers can't build just anything they want. All of this has come to be out of lots of negotiation involving lots of interests.
Remember that before Cityscape went in and risked a ton of money to fix up the area, Options for Homes was dropping inelegant apartment buildings square on top of rackhouses that no-one else wanted to invest in. This area could have ended up with a lot more of the latter.
42
This thread reads like a bunch of kids standing on across from each other on a playground screaming "Yeah?" "Yeah!" "Yeah?" "Yeah!" at each other. This latest bit about 'what the city wants' is more oversimplification which a bunch of you have jumped all over as if it were the full uncomplicated truth. The building of projects like this are devilishly complex with many competing rights demanding to be taken into account.
The City can't just stop every aspect of every project they don't like, and developers can't build just anything they want. All of this has come to be out of lots of negotiation involving lots of interests.
Remember that before Cityscape went in and risked a ton of money to fix up the area, Options for Homes was dropping inelegant apartment buildings square on top of rackhouses that no-one else wanted to invest in. This area could have ended up with a lot more of the latter.
TD Centre won't work in just any context, and it's fair to say that the 'breathing space' is not particularily used, and is from a functional point a failure.
I don't think it is fair to say that. I don't even think it's correct.
Remember that before Cityscape went in and risked a ton of money to fix up the area, Options for Homes was dropping inelegant apartment buildings square on top of rackhouses that no-one else wanted to invest in. This area could have ended up with a lot more of the latter.
But what I'm persistently wondering about is: why is it that those coming most avidly in defence here of the Clear/Pure Spirit urban approach seem to be gay male aesthetes? It just strikes me as terribly...*monochrome*, somehow...