Have we not read this exact post on the previous page? C'mon, sunnyray, there's really nothing new here: too high, too dense, too near other structures, incorrect land use yada yada yada...

I'm guessing that 100m height limit was enacted over 15 years ago when the original buildings were being planned. Many moons have passed and many stories constructed since then. I'm not sure of any exact numbers but does anyone have a rough estimate of how many new buildings around or over 100m were constructed in that same period? We live in a different city, a larger city, a denser city. I'm not going to chide you with flip remarks about where you 'should live,' but sunnyray, since your initial objection, you seem to have run out of material.

I do hope Hullmark gets built at 164m and if possible, Emerald Park as well (maybe nudging 200?!:eek:;)). To object to these developments so vehemently yet with so little evidence and so weak an argument seems a little absurd if you ask me. Furthermore, if moderators are having to step in to edit your posts, I'd either tone it down or seek greener pastures.
 
I'm guessing that 100m height limit was enacted over 15 years ago when the original buildings were being planned. Many moons have passed and many stories constructed since then. I'm not sure of any exact numbers but does anyone have a rough estimate of how many new buildings around or over 100m were constructed in that same period? We live in a different city, a larger city, a denser city. I'm not going to chide you with flip remarks about where you 'should live,' but sunnyray, since your initial objection, you seem to have run out of material.
Click to expand...



I'm curious as to why 100m or 35 storeys is too short? I believe there still are less than a hundred residential buildings of that height throughout the whole metro area. It's true most were built in the past six years however, now that it has ended, I wouldn't bet on a return to these heights anytime soon.


BTW, The limit was enacted around 2001/2002 and except for a few dozen condos along Yonge and a whole whack of mcmansions everywhere else, central North York is pretty much the same.
 
ProjectEnd said:
Have we not read this exact post on the previous page? C'mon, sunnyray, there's really nothing new here: too high, too dense, too near other structures, incorrect land use yada yada yada...

I'm guessing that 100m height limit was enacted over 15 years ago when the original buildings were being planned. Many moons have passed and many stories constructed since then. I'm not sure of any exact numbers but does anyone have a rough estimate of how many new buildings around or over 100m were constructed in that same period? We live in a different city, a larger city, a denser city. I'm not going to chide you with flip remarks about where you 'should live,' but sunnyray, since your initial objection, you seem to have run out of material.

I do hope Hullmark gets built at 164m and if possible, Emerald Park as well (maybe nudging 200?!:eek:;)). To object to these developments so vehemently yet with so little evidence and so weak an argument seems a little absurd if you ask me. Furthermore, if moderators are having to step in to edit your posts, I'd either tone it down or seek greener pastures.
Click to expand...


Directly east of Tridel Hullmark Centre is Minto Garden's Radiance with 33 floors,... at 98m,... originally Area A 0% residential but was OMB for residential use.
http://www.urbandb.com/canada/ontario/toronto/minto_gardens_east/

Here's a more informative site with height of various buildings in Toronto,... both constructed and proposed:
http://www.urbandb.com/canada/ontario/toronto/all.html

Tallest building in North York seems to be Empire On Bayview (Bayview & Sheppard) at 130m,... mainly because of the empire state building roof design with a huge pole on top. With 28 floors, building itself is about 85m,... not including that artistic roof and pole
http://www.urbandb.com/canada/ontario/toronto/empire_on_bayview/

Empress Walk is close to 100m limit,... with 32-33 floors building itself is about 100m,... but both towers have large artistic pinnacles on top bringing total height to 116m-118m. Empress Walk developer had to give the city and community many concessions to build residential on a site zoned for offices, originally Area A 0% residential.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empress_Walk
- rebuild Earl Haig Secondary School
- rebuild McKee Public School
- rebuild Mitchell Field Community Centre
- re-align Doris Avenue to prevent thru-way traffic in a residential area connecting Bayview Avenue and Yonge Street.

Gee,... I wonder what concession Bazis Emerald Park and Tridel Hullmark Centre can offer the community.

Empress Walk is a great example of two residential condo towers (32 & 33 floors) in downtown North York that's well built within 100m limit (excluding artistic pinnacles) and serves the community well with a decent little mall & Loblaw in the podium.

Why is it that a building has to be huge and dwarf all surrounding buildings?,... at least it seems that way according to those on this board.

Why can't Bazis Emerald Park and Tridel Hullmark Centre be built within the 100m limit for the area? Bazis Emerald Park is already a stand out anyway,... with its artistic leaning roof,.... and it's use of green and dark shade glass, in contrast to the mostly generic cement and glass buildings of North York downtown. I think the Bazis Emerald Park design is much better overall than Tridel Hullmark Centre,... but I do perfer how Tridel Hullmark Centre's interface with the street level,... the Yonge Dundas square look will bring some excitment to the area. But both residential towers of Tridel Hullmark Centre is way to plain,... seems the designers never put much effort and creativity into the design of the residential towers,... most likely because they know it'll never be built at 164m anyways.
 
sunnyraytoronto said:
Why is it that a building has to be huge and dwarf all surrounding buildings?,... at least it seems that way according to those on this board.

Why can't Bazis Emerald Park and Tridel Hullmark Centre be built within the 100m limit for the area? But both residential towers of Tridel Hullmark Centre is way to plain,... seems the designers never put much effort and creativity into the design of the residential towers,... most likely because they know it'll never be built at 164m anyways.
Click to expand...

Dont forget, (most likely has been approved by the OMB by now)

Menkes Gibson Square
5170 YONGE ST

Application #: 08 213938 NNY 23

Description: Proposal for 2, 42-storey 140 meter residential condominium buildings joined by a podium and retail at grade. An underground TTC connection is also proposed.

Non-Residential GFA: 1,974.40 sq.m. (maybe retail?)
Total GFA: 93,721.96 sq.m.
Proposed: 937 residential units
 
ProjectEnd said:
I'm not sure of any exact numbers but does anyone have a rough estimate of how many new buildings around or over 100m were constructed in that same period?
Click to expand...

According to Skyscraperpage.com 59 buildings over 100m have been built or are presently under construction since 2001. http://skyscraperpage.com/diagrams/?searchID=42150797

Personally, I am in favour of having a signature tower (or two) at key intersections throughout the city. 164 meters would place it just above Minto at Yonge and Eglinton. I think this is an ideal site for these heights.
 
ProjectEnd said:
I'm guessing that 100m height limit was enacted over 15 years ago when the original buildings were being planned. Many moons have passed and many stories constructed since then. I'm not sure of any exact numbers but does anyone have a rough estimate of how many new buildings around or over 100m were constructed in that same period?
Click to expand...


Guys, I'm under the assumption he was referring to the NY area since that's where this 100m height limit is being applied.
 
Yes and no. While the 100m limit has been applied here more strictly than other places further south, my comments were intended to illustrate how the city as a whole has grown up.
 
Sunnyray, perhaps you should have a look at this video. It's a lecture by Mark Kingwell in which he discusses, among other things, the idea of 'relative height.' Kingwell uses this term to describe the pleasurable feeling one gets simply from recognizing that one building is taller than another. I don't expect this video to change your position, but its some philosophical food for urban soul.

Link

Thanks to barrytron3030 for the original link.
 
ProjectEnd said:
Sunnyray, perhaps you should have a look at this video. It's a lecture by Mark Kingwell in which he discusses, among other things, the idea of 'relative height.' Kingwell uses this term to describe the pleasurable feeling one gets simply from recognizing that one building is taller than another. I don't expect this video to change your position, but its some philosophical food for urban soul.

Link

Thanks to barrytron3030 for the original link.
Click to expand...


Building with 'relative height' gives a 'pleasurable feeling' when the highest building is in the centre and relatively shorter buildings surrounds it,... and the buildings get shorter and shorter the further away you get from the tallest building in the centre. In effect, the building-scape looks like a triangle,... like a mountain.

But is that what Bazis Emerald Park does? Bazis Emerald Park will be at the south-west corner of the North York downtown service ring road. Bazis Emerald Park (142m) will be much taller than the Nestle building (21 storey office building at 118m including artistic roof design),... Bazis Emerald Park will be to the south of Nestle building and the main pack of buildings on the west side of Yonge Street. To the immediate west and south of Bazis Emerald Park are bungalows and 2 storey houses. So using your 'relative height' arguement, Bazis Emerald Park should be much shorter,... especially since it's at the edge and thus should not have a dominating height.

Tridel Hullmark Centre has 98m Minto Gardens Radiance to the east, Sheppard Centre 2 office towers and 3 appartment towers to the north and 15 storey Proctor & Gamble to the south. If Tridel Hullmark Centre was built at 100m plus the 15m or so for artistic design roof (which seems to be the only way to get over 100m limit in North York downtown),... then it'll dominate with 'relative height' on the east side of Yonge. Though, it'll still need a few more metres to compete with existing Nestle building (118m) to the west. Thus there would be merit for Tridel Hullmark Centre to be 'relatively' taller than surrounding buildings according to the 'relative height' for 'pleasureable feeling',... but it height certainly shouldn't be dominating over the surrounding buildings. BTW, the artistic roof design on Tridel Hullmark Centre looks very uncreative,... it's just a big wall!
 
sunnyraytoronto said:
Building with 'relative height' gives a 'pleasurable feeling' when the highest building is in the centre and relatively shorter buildings surrounds it,... and the buildings get shorter and shorter the further away you get from the tallest building in the centre. In effect, the building-scape looks like a triangle,... like a mountain.
Click to expand...

Not at all. I can't stand a skyline that looks like it was premeditated. As Shocker has noted before (and in a different thread), having buildings which tower over others draws ones eye to the negative space between the structures and puts it at the forefront. One of the best examples of this transformation was after the construction of Sp!re to the east of the MINT complex.

In your post, you imply that there is only one, pyramidal way to construct a skyline. Place a large building in the center as a focal point and have concentric rings of smaller buildings petering out from that innermost point. I however, much prefer the idea of an organic skyline which develops over time and through changing economic conditions and architectural styles (though the host of recent faux-derived condos may prove that last point redundant). It is a much better reflection of how a city would grow on its own and therefore is the model which gives me the most 'pleasurable feeling.
 
ProjectEnd said:
The only 'wall' that would be created would be through imposing universal height limits for buildings along a certain stretch; something which you quite vehemently argue for, no?
Click to expand...

He argues, cause Sunnyray most likley lives in a pad that eventuly will have some obstructed views, if one or both of these two developments go ahead and get built.
 
ProjectEnd said:
Not at all. I can't stand a skyline that looks like it was premeditated.
Click to expand...
I couldn't agree more. That is partly why I don't like when cities have everything all planned out as to how they want everything to look.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top