I thought this thing was approved already? Why would they submit another application for a shorter height? I think that sign is from an old version of the proposal.
 
Woh! I didn't think they're going to cut these buildings this low. Lot of bad news too many skyscrapers are being chopped down to size this week !
 
They got the wrong idea in creating a skyline. All the buildings all basically chopped at the height that council wants them to be . Just look at the out come of the entertainment district. They should really zigzag in height differential between the two or more tower's. Creating more breathing space between each other.
 
cd concept said:
They got the wrong idea in creating a skyline. All the buildings all basically chopped at the height that council wants them to be . Just look at the out come of the entertainment district. They should really zigzag in height differential between the two or more tower's. Creating more breathing space between each other.
Click to expand...
What the skyline looks like depends on your point-of-view and there are millions of POV. Why would planners be concerned about how the skyline looks?
 
I'm more concerned about shape of what's being proposed than its height. And it's looking a little awkward right now.
 
Bluffers416 said:
What the skyline looks like depends on your point-of-view and there are millions of POV. Why would planners be concerned about how the skyline looks?
Click to expand...
It seems to me that if one developer gets a certain height in an area . All the other want the same too. You can see 400 Front St. developing beside a park with towers at the same height. The one close to the park should have been chopped down to let the sun in. Then added to the other one in height to compensate in my opinion .
 
cd concept said:
It seems to me that if one developer gets a certain height in an area . All the other want the same too. You can see 400 Front St. developing beside a park with towers at the same height. The one close to the park should have been chopped down to let the sun in. Then added to the other one in height to compensate in my opinion .
Click to expand...
This can be solved by purchasing air rights like they do in New York.

Which is why you see very tall buildings mixed in medium height buildings.

I personally love that look. Gives a city a really chaotic look and that's how cities are suppose to be.

Toronto's manicured skyline shaped like a tent is just really boring in my opinion. The only good thing is that there are multiple clusters of tall buildings which does add a little chaos to Toronto.

But we need to have tall buildings scattered all over.
 
Mercenary said:
This can be solved by purchasing air rights like they do in New York.

Which is why you see very tall buildings mixed in medium height buildings.

I personally love that look. Gives a city a really chaotic look and that's how cities are suppose to be.

Toronto's manicured skyline shaped like a tent is just really boring in my opinion. The only good thing is that there are multiple clusters of tall buildings which does add a little chaos to Toronto.

But we need to have tall buildings scattered all over.
Click to expand...
I was going to say this to in my post . In New York if a developer wants more air rights. They have to collect a certain amount of expensive property around it. To build a super tall and preserve remaining buildings bought giving room to breath between towers etc.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top