yyzer said:
.if they are looking for real world feedback on planning policies, this has to be the place to get it....
Click to expand...

or perhaps the numerous public consultations for individual projects, official plan consultations, secondary plan consultations, Tall building guideline consultations, various street improvement consultations, design charettes, working groups set-up to deal with specific project, community council meetings etc... I don't think the planning department suffers from lack of real world feedback - and as much as I love UT - it isn't real world feedback ... (I'd actually suggest the planning department probably 'over-consults' and the process is currently too far drawn out suffering from regulatory inertia - given the lack of resources they have and the long delays for projects, they should be consulting less)
 
o.k. Mike, let me rephrase - if they are looking for real world feedback from enthusiastic, engaged urbanists with an eye for design excellence, this has to be the place to get it....;)
 
yyzer said:
o.k. Mike, let me rephrase - if they are looking for real world feedback from enthusiastic, engaged urbanists with an eye for design excellence, this has to be the place to get it....;)
Click to expand...

Agreed
 
Ok So a few pages back there are renders for whats possibly to come for this spot. I got to say, fantastic. those are very cool and just about perfect for the area.
 
yyzer said:
o.k. Mike, let me rephrase - if they are looking for real world feedback from enthusiastic, engaged urbanists with an eye for design excellence, this has to be the place to get it....;)
Click to expand...

This is true, the numerous public consultations tend to be swamped by the local (and sometimes nonlocal) NIMBYs, or at least that is what I gather from the various reports about public consultation proceedings I have read here and elsewhere.

Of course, people here also frequently hate on a particular development, but at least they usually give somewhat cogent reasons for their opinions beyond the "anything over six stories tall will destroy the neighborhood" blather often heard at the public consultations.
 
This project and the others in the last few weeks, involve a big load of cash, and some of the prime property in the country. The money paid for 1 Yonge suggests the purchasers have a good idea what the
city will allow, and what they will have to give up for approval. Is this parcel of land big enough for a 4 large buildings? I can't see them buying and then proposing a project this big without some idea
of what they can get away with. There has been so much coming down the pipeline lately, it's getting hard to digest, and i can't see the city letting all this go forward. Mirvish/ Gehry, Oxford, 50 Bloor W.
now this. There appears to be a lot of faith in the Toronto market, and it's not slowing down as the bankers have been suggesting.
 
It seems to me that the market is simply backing off from its lofty heights, but that given the paucity of land available for lowrise housing, high rise will be more prominent in the future than many pundits believe - the pundits of course mostly hailing from a bygone era of suburbanization and its attendant ideals.

These large-scale projects are, in my opinion, quite feasible. I would suspect that it will be smaller projects that fall by the wayside and get cancelled rather than these high profile developments.

I was somewhat suspect of this feeling, until the success of Ten York. I believe the large developers will be able to find investors willing to buy their units (even if prices stagnate somewhat), while investment-driven small projects will be left behind. However, those smaller developments that cater to the end-user will be ultimately successful in this environment.

Even if we can sell only 1000 units per month, and those are concentrated in larger developments, it would not take that long to absorb these proposals. Does anyone have an estimate as to the total unit count?

In the end, I would mostly like to see the stand-out developments go ahead - i.e. Oxford, Mirvish, 1 Yonge - but if 50 Bloor or others like it are cancelled I could not care less. We need some more landmarks to come out of this boom; moreover, south of the Gardiner and the east waterfront are of higher priority to me than Bloor would be: these parking lots are like knife wounds in the city.
 
Last edited:
skyscrapers these size are completely feasible. there are now over 129 buildings over 300m on the planet finished or under construction. Its more of a question of whether or not Torontonians are willing to accept a new tallest building 40 years after we got our current one. this is likely going to be around 3500 units assuming an average of 11 units a floor.

one also must realize that a 4 condo tower project will more than likely be phased like Cityplace. I expect the two shorter towers to go up first, as they seem to be the most advanced in the design process in the render. (and the office tower) the Tallest building seems like nothing more than a massing model currently. a semi-circular building like that is not something that HP would come up with for their final design.
 
Last edited:
You know, the one thing as an amateur skyscraper geek I really hate about all this? Every once in a while along comes a design I absolutely go gaga for (very rare for me), but it's nothing but a cruel tease, a rouse, to get me all excited, and then totally PO'd after they've, for several reasons, been forced to re-design and scale it down to half as good as it could have been, adding to the inane, dull square box and no design towers that keep being built. I'm sorry, I know this sounds horribly pessimistic, by this point you should all know I tend to be a tad dramatic about things, and I really am thrilled to be living in Toronto during its biggest construction boom ever. Just my personal opinion (I know many wont agree, that's cool) but it seems that, aside from the past few exciting proposals (like Gerhy or Oxford) there are far too many boxy towers with little to add a stunning visual dynamic to our ever increasing skyline (which, by the way, is in no way, shape, or form, turning out to be the supposed idealistic pyramid) and no where nearly enough towers with, aside from sheer height and size appeal, visual appeal. I've always leaned towards the unique, and this new preliminary proposal seems to fit the bill perfectly. I'm very proud of my city, and all we have, and are accomplishing, but so much of our architecture is downright boring. If a complex is to be built that's sitting right on the water front, a new signature complex, I plead they make it one with more then only 90 degree angles and glass curtain walls a la 1990's Bay Street Del Condo's. any one else feel the same way, or is it just me? (Oh boy, I'm just asking for it aren't I?).
 
there are now over 129 buildings over 300m on the planet finished or under construction.
Click to expand...

No one is questioning feasibility from a technical standpoint of course. The primary obstacle is the viability of the condo market, and specifically the downtown condo market (since that is where the highest priced units are located, while many lower priced units further from the core will continue to be bought).

Obviously many in this city seem averse to tall buildings and heights taller than FCP - then of course there is the fetish for the CN tower. What holds Toronto back often is the dominance of a reactionary public nostalgic for a 1970s Toronto but unwilling to unleash the same creative forces again - ironically because they lived through the 1970s themselves and now fight change even though they initiated that period of transformation. These creative energies need to be harnessed again, and I agree with Hanlansboy completely that our builders must shift from their current mode of accepting mediocrity to seeking greatness.

Other than shadowing, there is no reason why this site especially would be rejected as the location for the next tallest tower in Toronto. I believe from a land use standpoint that this falls within the no-height limit zone - or is that false?
 
Last edited:
Wow, so many large buildings being proposed in the past 6 months. Toronto now has over a dozen 70+ towers being proposed. Something has to materialize whether it's this project, Mirvish, or the casino project.
 
my official guesstimates based off of a 180m office tower, and counting floors presuming them to be 3m tall:

100storey_zps115a3950.jpg
 
Nice guess work innsert. It will be interesting to see how close you are to the official proposed heights once they are announced. On a different note, did anyone notice the strong similarity of the furthest North east tower (288m guesstimate) to HPs prominate Shangri La tower?
 
Mongo said:
This is true, the numerous public consultations tend to be swamped by the local (and sometimes nonlocal) NIMBYs, or at least that is what I gather from the various reports about public consultation proceedings I have read here and
Click to expand...

Okay, we'll that opinion is actually well reflected in the discussions that actually occur at those public consultations. But I'll point out that I and a couple (very few) other UT members actually attend these public consultations where opinions voiced actually matter and are on the public record impacting public policy and are a component of the democratic policy regime that shapes our urban environment. So I would challenge and encourage people to get up and out from beyond their computer and keyboard postings at UT to actually become engaged in the very public open and accessible planning process rather then simply posting on a message board and complaining about the state of Toronto affairs. Excuse my language, but rather than bitching and complaining about planning decisions on UT, you skyscraper fanatatics could actually show up to public meetings and put some skin in the game and voice you opinions to those that ultimately make decisions.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top