That said, I find this more palatable than the last one. The effect of the last one was a giant slab. Architecturally, it's a wash. We'll have to wait to see on the density figures to see if it has increased or not. (?) The last one was pretty much at the uppermost limit between acceptable and gross overbuilding of the site. I hate how the afterthought of a podium extends over the old building. Leave it alone! We don't need another facadism for the purpose of excavating fewer floors for parking. There's a whole bunch of other considerations as well. Those are just the ones that came to me first.
 
maestro said:
Growth still needs to be handled delicately to maintain the high quality of life. Your attitude is like using a sledgehammer to open a crate with fragile written on it.
Click to expand...

I agree but it's also worth recognizing a growing degree of frustration that's building with a lot of people. High density growth is being managed and planned by a substantial number of people who don't actually like high density. Their comfort level with it is relatively muted. When 300m in the core makes people go ballistic one has to question whether they're living in the right part of the city. Toronto needs to be for everyone; that includes those who like super high density.

In reality, a very small % of metro Toronto's land area will end up with super high density. If downtown is getting too dense there's 95% of the rest of metro where they can live. The downtown should be allowed to be that small pocket where it can occur.

There's also the argument that our infrastructure can't handle it. Rather than putting brakes on the density shouldn't they be focusing in on upgrading/expanding the infrastructure? We have a lot of smart people who can figure out how to do that if they can't. There seems to be an inbred denial of where the downtown is heading and its impinging on our ability to manage that growth optimally.

Super talls are coming. Maybe even a mega tall (600m+) one day. Let's plan for it. Fighting it tooth and nail is no way to react to something that's obviously in demand in this market.
 
Last edited:
Speaking of the East side of Yonge Street (which will be incredibly dense with Teahouse, the potential 475 Yonge Street Marriott redevelopment, 2 Carlton, and now YSL), I wonder if the vacant lot at Yonge and Gould can accommodate another high-rise, which could expand its footprint since HMV is closing. 200m would be impressive overlooking the square.
 
@steveve, the thread for that site is here, and yes there's been a tower proposal for the site, which has since gone rather stale.

42
 
isaidso said:
I agree but it's also worth recognizing a growing degree of frustration that's building with a lot of people. High density growth is being managed and planned by a substantial number of people who don't actually like high density. Their comfort level with it is relatively muted. When 300m in the core makes people go ballistic one has to question whether they're living in the right part of the city. Toronto needs to be for everyone; that includes those who like super high density.

In reality, a very small % of metro Toronto's land area will end up with super high density. If downtown is getting too dense there's 95% of the rest of metro where they can live. The downtown should be allowed to be that small pocket where it can occur.

There's also the argument that our infrastructure can't handle it. Rather than putting brakes on the density shouldn't they be focusing in on upgrading/expanding the infrastructure? We have a lot of smart people who can figure out how to do that if they can't. There seems to be an inbred denial of where the downtown is heading and its impinging on our ability to manage that growth optimally.

Super talls are coming. Maybe even a mega tall (600m+) one day. Let's plan for it. Fighting it tooth and nail is no way to react to something that's obviously in demand in this market.
Click to expand...

You continue to confuse height with density. They do relate to one another but, they aren't the same thing. You'd be hard pressed to find another city that approves so many developments above 25 FAR. This proposal provides a good example. The new one tower design is likely the same density as the two tower design that was a hundred plus metres shorter. Every proposal squeezes as much height out of as high a coverage as they can. There's been many tall proposals but, few were actually designed to be tall. Tall is just a byproduct. 600 metres is a pipe dream. 300 metres is still in doubt until a developer actual steps up and builds something to that approved height.

You're directing your frustration at the wrong people. It's the developers and not the experienced planning staff keeping Toronto from becoming supertall.
 
Going to look good from these angles as well...
fa73fd03-913d-49d2-bff5-7bdb6c5c1968_zpsbg3wavrm.jpg

30ff3c88-7a55-4a7a-af12-ae7ce46516e5_zpsnmk80h3j.jpg
 
isaidso said:
I agree but it's also worth recognizing a growing degree of frustration that's building with a lot of people. High density growth is being managed and planned by a substantial number of people who don't actually like high density. Their comfort level with it is relatively muted. When 300m in the core makes people go ballistic one has to question whether they're living in the right part of the city. Toronto needs to be for everyone; that includes those who like super high density.

In reality, a very small % of metro Toronto's land area will end up with super high density. If downtown is getting too dense there's 95% of the rest of metro where they can live. The downtown should be allowed to be that small pocket where it can occur.

There's also the argument that our infrastructure can't handle it. Rather than putting brakes on the density shouldn't they be focusing in on upgrading/expanding the infrastructure? We have a lot of smart people who can figure out how to do that if they can't. There seems to be an inbred denial of where the downtown is heading and its impinging on our ability to manage that growth optimally.

Super talls are coming. Maybe even a mega tall (600m+) one day. Let's plan for it. Fighting it tooth and nail is no way to react to something that's obviously in demand in this market.
Click to expand...

Not really, the economics of supertall is really questionable once you go about a certain point (which is why you are getting that cutoff at 300m even now, give or take). I would argue that our planning policies actually encourages the trend towards high density in the core given the relative lack of intermediate options (thanks to NIMBYism in the so called "yellow belt").

Also don't forget that building tall usually meant that you can't build them close to one another - and that is ultimately an issue of how you arrange the density, not tall = dense per se.

AoD
 
Bogtrotter said:
Judging from the preliminaries it looks like it could be an elegant and imposing tower, and refreshing to a see a large project uncluttered with balconies. That said I didn't hate the older Quadrangle design and I actually quite liked their bridge component. I much preferred the street level design of the older project as well, this new one is much less interesting and doesn't seem to add much to the street-cape.
Click to expand...

I really liked the old Quandrangle design as well. This is no-doubt a great proposal, but the old one was more striking IMO. Not to mention it included a number of townhouses, which would be a great addition to a downtown location. Hopefully this new proposal includes at least a good number of 3 or more bedroom units if there are no townhouses.
 
Just look at the stats

Mirvish, One Yonge, YSL all place in the Top 40 in the world for floor count. For height, YSL, isn't in the Top 100 and the other two are around the 250s. The only one that is anywhere near equal in both categories is The One being in the Top 200 for floor count and arounds the 250s in height. That also means Aura and One Bloor are in the Top 200 for floor count.

You want dizzying height , well, 9 foot ceiling with a mechanical box on top isn't going to do it. Underground parking and without strict 1:1 minimums doesn't help either.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top