[jetsbackincanada]

I think the real problem there, is that "interesting business" can't afford gentrified rents, or leases, which is why they were in the run down strip in the first place. 2 The digital age has many people shopping from home, or they go to the mall...... So the interesting streets of our youth,may be a thing of the past, leaving us with chain coffee shops, bars, restaraunts, and large chain retail. Record stores, thrift shops, mom n pop drug stores, and the like are a thing of the past,.....unfortunatley.
My Uptown area of MPLS, has been gentrified, last ten years, it's all condos, apple stores, highend wine bars and no character, but along with character comes squalor and the rough types.( Prostitutes, drugs,crime) People here lament the changes, but its part of any citys growth. On top of all this , we have the same issues but zero density. You can't blame the high rise....I wish we had a condo over 5 stories, but nada. So it seems any redone block is gonna loose its character, and characters, at least you gained density, making the few local business' more viable. I would take that anyday. Cityplace is not to blame, nore it designers. Just the nature of business today.(?)

 

[maestro]

Why don't you read what I actually wrote before you make accusations:

My mistake. I don't have time to read every post word for word. Even so, there is nothing "can be" about it. It's all good.

I think it's fair to say that there are more supertalls that have stalled construction than there are being built.

 

[denfromoakvillemilton]

Can someone please change the name of this thread to "Toronto needs a/some 300m+ Tower(s) or Supertall(s)"?

I just tried to but it did not show up. Maybe a mod can do this?

 

[denfromoakvillemilton]

Fellow members,

I love tall buildings, having been fascinated by them since the TD Centre first went up but I often wonder just what about it makes us so compelled to discuss, photograph and sadly even attack in print those among us who don't feel the need for supertalls. Just what are we getting out of seeing plans for 300 meter buildings? Why stop there? 400, say why not even 500 meters if we can pull it off. Is it the need for us to puff out our chests to the rest of the world? Bragging rights? More impressive postcards? It's all for naught if it isn't planned well and creates havoc at the street level. I'd much rather see an intelligent exchange of viewpoints about supertalls without the personal digs, subtle and otherwise. Still I remain vexed on a personal level..."Why am I so intrigued by supertalls and what am I getting out of it when I stand at the base of First Canadian Place and look up....way up.

Basically that why I want them. I just want to be taller. And I think its cool.

 

[scarberiankhatru]

I always read this thread title as "Toronto needs 300m+ more towers." 300 million more towers would be neat.

 

[Second_in_pie]

Basically that why I want them. I just want to be taller. And I think its cool.

Then it's coolness vs. the benefit of splitting a single supertall into 3 or 4 buildings. You may achieve some dick-waving rights by having a big 300m skyline, but you get a better city if you focus growth into smaller buildings which can go across the city rather than be focused in a single area.

 

[maestro]

According to SSP, 24 of the tallest 30 towers under construction are in Toronto. Of the remaining six, three are in Missy.

 

[gabe]

That's amazing! ^ Vancouver is one city that needs some height. The tallest building is 201 m. Most of their buildings are between 130m and 150 m. Gives the skyline a table top effect

 

[adma]

Vancouver is one city that needs some height.

Seismic reasons otherwise?

 

[sodapop]

i love vancouvers short skyline! but i think they will start building taller once they have run out of almost all lots of land

 

[gabe]

Vancouver is very restricted in its land area. It's a shame they filled in most of the space with bland and boring low qaulity mid rise buildings. They need more taller iconic higher quality buildings.

 

[Kontiki]

Seismic reasons otherwise?

Only partially. The main reason is that Vancouver has very strict guidelines regarding "view corridors". Basically, there are a bunch of places within the city from which you have to be able to see the North Shore mountains from ground level. This really restricts where developers are allowed to erect buildings over a certain height. Vancouver also has a very powerful planning board, so it's difficult to get approval to exceed the pre-existing restrictions.

 

[jn_12]

It's probably a good thing that view corridors are maintained. The mountains are far more important than a few tall buildings.

 

[sodapop]

i agree, the mountains make the skyline imo and if they were rivaled by some other skyscraper i think it would take away from the effect that the skyline has on you

 

[gabe]

Vancouver's strict guidelines are being reexamined with tourism and condo boom.

Vancouver has long treasured its mountain views, and with good reason.

But while the downtown area’s proximity to visually stunning mountain ranges and ocean views has proven to be a draw for tourism and real estate, Vancouver’s rapidly accelerating growth and limited building space is forcing planners, builders and community groups to reexamine current height restrictions.

Vancouver’s old height restrictions capped downtown buildings at 450 feet, but under new regulations those guidelines have been relaxed up to 650 feet. http://www.joconl.com/article/id24785