[maestro]

But "it's just the market we have" doesn't hold up. Look at other cities of a similar or smaller size with much more interesting architecture—it's simply not true that Toronto doesn't have the economy or wealth to support interesting building design (as is partly evidenced by what of it we do have). $5B in real estate sales isn't necessary to do something great; remember, too, that acquisition and building costs are significantly higher in cities such as New York. The land acquisition costs for *part* of the land at the residential project at 432 Park Ave., for instance, were over $400 million. Similarly, the cost for 30 Hudson Yards—in a previously derelict part of Manhattan—were nearly $200 million, and Related had to build a $721 million platform just to construct a $3 billion tower atop it. Toronto developers simply don't face costs at that scale for similar projects—Mizrahi paid a reported $300 million for the lot where the One is to be located, one of the most prominent in the city. $5 billion-worth of sales aren't necessary (or possible) in Toronto because the costs aren't as high.

@FMCS makes a good point: Developers can (and do) settle for building large boxes because they can. It's their choice not to leave a legacy of any sort, where developers all over the world (and in Toronto in some cases) choose to make something special. I just wish more would opt for the latter, and I think any and all forms of public support for that sort of thing can't hurt.

City size is irrelevant. Interesting is non specific. Please provide examples of these markets that are producing, on average, better, privately developed, architecture for the entry to mid level range. ( materials such as window wall vs curtain wall notwithstanding)

Cost of land is only part of the equation. None of these towers would be have been contemplated if not for a market willing to pay $50 to $120 million for an apartment. You wouldn't have the expensive density transfers or razor thing massing to extend a FSI of about 20 to 400 metres in height. By no means is Toronto cheap to buy property either which is why our mid ranged product costs more than the typical luxury offerings in most US markets so price point (as a comparison) only takes you so far.

Interesting is fair description for Miami. Good, however, is not.

 

[ADRM]

I of course accept that "interesting", as with "beauty" or any other subjective descriptor is vague and difficult to define. But, on aggregate, you'll find very few people who would posit that Toronto's contemporary buildings on the whole are architecturally more interesting (regardless of precise definition) than those in, say, Chicago, Barcelona, Madrid, Copenhagen, Stockholm, Berlin, Prague, Milan, etc.

 

[Shadow Weaver]

Ah yes, another one of those lame "if you want this then just move somewhere else" comments. As if Vaughan has any Victorian houses or midrise buildings.

Vaughan is Urban Sprawl because Nimys like their cookie cutter fake looking imitation of Victorian Villages. If you want heritage homes go live in Niagra by The Lake, Gravenhurst, Haliburton etc. , I hope you get the point.

The decrepit shaks on Young Street, should not be saved, not all off them, because people are afraid of change and innovation.

Industrial wastelands like 1-7 Yonge should be approved no matter the height. Developers spend millions on artists and architects only for the city of Toronto to turn them into boxes, why we get cheap spendral.

Aeroquay One is modern heritage ( no body fought to keep it, would have made a great air museum)

The Eaton Centre is destroyed and the Simpson's Tower... Why are falling wooden shaks so important but not our modern marvels?

 

[Lenser]

I think I'm having a shak attaq.

 

[Red October]

Aeroquay One would have been a little in the way.

 

[cc46]

What's the appetite for height? I've lived at 22, 23, 9, 6, 16, 2, for about half my life, and at ground for the rest. So what do people want? I'm guessing not too many want above 40. Anyone know?

 

[ptbotmpfn]

I think I'm having a shak attaq.

Really better get that takin care of .

 

[maestro]

I of course accept that "interesting", as with "beauty" or any other subjective descriptor is vague and difficult to define. But, on aggregate, you'll find very few people who would posit that Toronto's contemporary buildings on the whole are architecturally more interesting (regardless of precise definition) than those in, say, Chicago, Barcelona, Madrid, Copenhagen, Stockholm, Berlin, Prague, Milan, etc.

You may have a point with some of those although I was speaking specifically of residential design quality as a whole. I've seen my share of exceptional design but, also the truly awful. Toronto's development tend to reside in the middle.

 

[maestro]

Vaughan is Urban Sprawl because Nimys like their cookie cutter fake looking imitation of Victorian Villages. If you want heritage homes go live in Niagra by The Lake, Gravenhurst, Haliburton etc. , I hope you get the point.

The decrepit shaks on Young Street, should not be saved, not all off them, because people are afraid of change and innovation.

Industrial wastelands like 1-7 Yonge should be approved no matter the height. Developers spend millions on artists and architects only for the city of Toronto to turn them into boxes, why we get cheap spendral.

Aeroquay One is modern heritage ( no body fought to keep it, would have made a great air museum)

The Eaton Centre is destroyed and the Simpson's Tower... Why are falling wooden shaks so important but not our modern marvels?

Show me where a developer has proposed an outstanding design with exceptional quality cladding only to have the city deny it on its architectural merits. How much taller do you think this project would be if Pinnacle was given free reign? Note: heights haven't been lowered. The density has been reduced. I still have doubts Pinnacle will build up to 95 storeys.

 

[ADRM]

You may have a point with some of those although I was speaking specifically of residential design quality as a whole. I've seen my share of exceptional design but, also the truly awful. Toronto's development tend to reside in the middle.

Yeah, I think that's right. Someone up-thread mentioned Miami, and I think that's a city with more than a few examples of big, expensive, ostentatious projects that don't necessarily add much to the beauty of the city or, certainly, the at-grade public realm experience.

While it would be nice to see some more daring designs on towers at strategically important locations throughout the city, I also agree that what those buildings contribute at the ground level is much more important. In that way, that's a dynamic that I don't think Toronto lags as far behind on, compared against other cities, not because Toronto developers have done a great job of it, but because so few big tower complexes around the world have nailed it. I think the BIG King West proposal presents an interesting contribution in that way.

I think a non-traditional, better than average at-grade publci experience is especially important for this site not only because it's a prominent location, but because that neighbourhood, at a point in an exciting transition, is really lifeless most of the time. Sugar Beach and Sherbourne Common are wonderful starts, but they're as yet quite unconnected from the rest of the waterfront experience, and I've seen nothing in the master plans for the area that would bridge that divide (though a solidified waterfront transit plan would help).

 

[ADRM]

What's the appetite for height? I've lived at 22, 23, 9, 6, 16, 2, for about half my life, and at ground for the rest. So what do people want? I'm guessing not too many want above 40. Anyone know?

The obsession in this city with balconies all the way up very tall towers is very strange to me—that's something Frank Gehry also commented on, reflecting on his deliberations with the developer during the Mirvish-Gehry King St. design process. If you've ever been on a balcony above even the 20th storey of a building—let alone the 56th—it's actually mildly terrifying. For that reason, buildings like the Shangri-la have created tall glass enclosures to protect the outdoor areas at the highest floors.

What's more, many people experience vertigo-like symptoms on windy days on the upper floors of even many Toronto office buildings—having worked or had meetings in a couple of those towers, I'd want no part of the penthouse at One Bloor, Aura, the One, 1-7 Yonge, etc. On a particularly windy day at a high floor in Brookfield Place a few years ago, I noticed the water in the washrooms swishing back and forth. Similarly, a friend who lives on the 70th floor of a prominent NYC residential building recently lived through a fire alarm in her building, and had to walk down 70 flights of stairs as the elevators were out of service—she's dying for a 6th-floor unit right about now.

 

[stjames2queenwest]

no one is forcing anyone to live on a higher floor than they are comfortable with. Lots of people enjoy it. Others don't, most people choose accordingly. Why does this confuse people? So what if people like balconies?
The things that worry some of you folks is laughable.

 

[Benito]

My condo is above the 40th floor and we regularly enjoy being out there during the summer. Even during the spring and fall I will be out there tending to my planters. Despite my fear of heights I have learned to get out on my balcony and can now easily look down over the side of the railing down the building. Despite the height I would say many of us use and enjoy our balconies and wouldn't buy a condo without a balcony.

 

[A Torontonian Now]

My condo is above the 40th floor and we regularly enjoy being out there during the summer. Even during the spring and fall I will be out there tending to my planters. Despite my fear of heights I have learned to get out on my balcony and can now easily look down over the side of the railing down the building. Despite the height I would say many of us use and enjoy our balconies and wouldn't buy a condo without a balcony.

If you have any sort of fear of heights, then I am even more grateful for all the photos you take straight down of the site prep at The One.

 

[ADRM]

no one is forcing anyone to live on a higher floor than they are comfortable with. Lots of people enjoy it. Others don't, most people choose accordingly. Why does this confuse people? So what if people like balconies?
The things that worry some of you folks is laughable.

I'm not confused about anything, have no issues with people like balconies, and did not in any way posit that anyone was being forced to live at any particular height. I was simply responding to a question on the thread about people's appetite for height—of course, as with anything, some people are okay with it, and some are not.

On the face of it, I have no particular disposition for or against the height of a building, provided it fits within the broader urban context and carries with it no negative impacts. I'm not sure if wind or shadow studies have been undertaken with regard to this proposal, but I'd be interested to see what those look like for a 95-storey building on that location. I imagine it could have precedent implications for other proposed developments in the area; the first that comes to mind is the lands around Harbour Square/the Westin, which I believe are still up for sale.