thecharioteer
Senior Member
In the article, Matlow says:
“By having three towers, we ended up doing something extraordinary in that something like 44 per cent of the property ended up as open space,” he said.
Can we now declare that the much-maligned "tower-in-the-park" school of urban design is now alive and well in Toronto again? Do the Tall Building Guidelines need to be re-written? Can area planners handle the stress of having to actually think about urban design on a site by site basis instead of always reverting to the enshrined policies? Is this a Pandora box decision that will have long-lasting implications at future LPAT hearings?
“By having three towers, we ended up doing something extraordinary in that something like 44 per cent of the property ended up as open space,” he said.
Can we now declare that the much-maligned "tower-in-the-park" school of urban design is now alive and well in Toronto again? Do the Tall Building Guidelines need to be re-written? Can area planners handle the stress of having to actually think about urban design on a site by site basis instead of always reverting to the enshrined policies? Is this a Pandora box decision that will have long-lasting implications at future LPAT hearings?