interchange42 said:
It was a fairly friendly evening, a few people weren't so sure the tower was what they were wanting, one woman who lives north of the building is upset that her view south will be "compromised", questions regarding local sewer capacity (there's room), a Ryerson student thinks 367 Yonge should be saved as well for heritage reasons, and someone wants balconies on the building…

but there was zero yelling, no anger registered, nothing like what 8 Elm just across the street faced a few months ago, nothing at all of real consequence.
Click to expand...

Kudos to them. What a sharp contrast to the small village mentality going on in Rosedale and Cabbagetown.


Screen Shot 2017-04-20 at 1.11.45 AM.png
 

Attachments

  • Screen Shot 2017-04-20 at 1.11.45 AM.png
    Screen Shot 2017-04-20 at 1.11.45 AM.png
    793.6 KB · Views: 330
interchange42 said:
It was a fairly friendly evening, a few people weren't so sure the tower was what they were wanting, one woman who lives north of the building is upset that her view south will be "compromised", questions regarding local sewer capacity (there's room), a Ryerson student thinks 367 Yonge should be saved as well for heritage reasons, and someone wants balconies on the building…

42
Click to expand...
I really want to hug and kiss all these people for not criticizing the building.
 
ADRM said:
That is literally exactly what the city has done and is doing with a number of neighbourhoods.
Click to expand...

Well we're talking about Yonge Street and the growing pedestrian traffic on it specifically.
 
Last edited:
condovo said:
How is building a 500m+ tower a sign of building a city of the future any more than erecting a 400m+ or 100m+ or 50.2537m+ structure?
Click to expand...

It's not about building a 500m building. It's about recognizing how a city is evolving and planning around that rather than relying on piecemeal development. Piecemeal development is more suited to moderately or slowly growing cities.

The problem with smaller incremental change in a city like Toronto is that you get half way done an area and realize too late that your plans aren't adequate to meet the demands placed on it. Toronto still thinks like a giant Pittsburgh rather than a big global city on its way to becoming a mega city 20-30 years down the road.

Keesmaat is on record as saying that plans built around forecast growth/demand have had to be bumped up many times because their forecasts have proven far too conservative. They've adjusted quite well but it speaks to a city that failed to recognize the magnitude of what was occurring in Toronto.

We need some big city thinking; something John Tory alluded to last year. The rail deck park is an example of it but ideas like that are few and far between.
 
Last edited:
It's sound nuttier and nuttier every time you say it.

First. Number of metres tall is a highly superficial method of measuring buildable density. Most 500 metre towers incorporate architectural elements that contain no usable square footage and are built as centrepieces surrounded by acres of open spaces. Even in the NY, the supertalls are achieving their heights by 15 foot ceiling heights and low building coverage through expansive low rise podiums and windswept plazas.

Second. One 500 metre tall dropped anywhere in the downtown area is more representative of piece meal development than a community that has seen a half dozen, appropriately scaled towers. Those half dozen towers can be delivered at a fraction of the time it takes to occupy a 500 metre tower. Satisfying higher growth is not achievable at these extreme heights.

Third. Toronto is building much taller than most globally recognized cities. Some obscure prefecture level city in China with a 3 to 500 metre tower and a population of 5 to 10 million doesn't make it a global city.
 
maestro said:
Think there still some time before Chinese cities all leave Toronto's number of kilometres in the dust.

Here's a glorious 500+ metre tower development from a globally unknown city of Toronto's size
http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showpost.php?p=127233893&postcount=259

Look at that density and urban form. How many typical sized blocks in Toronto would have to be busted to fit that?

This is their current subway map
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shenyang_Metro
Click to expand...

They have 45 km of Subway under construction.
 
maestro said:
It's sound nuttier and nuttier every time you say it.

First. Number of metres tall is a highly superficial method of measuring buildable density.
Click to expand...

I stopped reading after this first sentence. What about it NOT BEING ABOUT HEIGHT do you not understand? Good grief.
 
Last edited:
Come now. You may say it isn't about height but, it is about height. Otherwise, what exactly are you ranting about once again? You would be hard pressed to find another city consistently approving 20 times coverage. Forget Pittsburgh. Manhattan doesn't do that. If anything, we are overbuilding in places to make up for our underbuilt mass transit lines. Function will always last longer than the majority of the grandiose development you so admire. Decking the rail corridor is a massive undertaking but, there is a practical need for it as the city centre continue to add more people. It will be done eventually.

It's just your tone and your view of things contradict one another. You express mastery but, don't even understand the basics. I just can't ignore it.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top