Why can't we get a tower with a beautiful crown? I'm tired of seeing one flat top after another. Nothing beats the beauty of a crown like the one on the Chrysler Building. A few distinctive crowns would make a world of difference to our skyline. (along with some decorative lighting)
 
This is an entirely appropriate site for skyscrapers with the sky being the limit. I say this even though I would be one of those nimby's that would be entirely against any development in my own neighbourhood over 6-8 storeys.

Why my opinion is not incongruent is that Toronto's built form will always be massively dominated by structures below 3 storeys. This is best. However, diversity in many of it's forms is what makes a city or urban area great. Tall buildings belong in this mix where appropriate. As many here have commented if we are going tall we should push for the best design possible and push for infrastructure and city services to appropriately reflect the increase in density.

Speaking of density, I actually find the density in this block to be excessive. I would prefer fewer, taller buildings. I know people here generally don't believe in the concept of excessive density but it does exist in Asia and it supresses the quality of the urban environment.

Those are my general comments, although this is largely just speculative. I would not expect to see anything built here until the next real estate cycle.
 
Why can't we get a tower with a beautiful crown? I'm tired of seeing one flat top after another. Nothing beats the beauty of a crown like the one on the Chrysler Building. A few distinctive crowns would make a world of difference to our skyline. (along with some decorative lighting)

Agreed!
The Chrysler Building, although shorter, is far more beautiful than Empire State or Willis Tower, especially when the top part is lit at night. I hope we can have something non-flat as well.
Our towers are so boring. So much glass and all flat top.
 
This is an entirely appropriate site for skyscrapers with the sky being the limit. I say this even though I would be one of those nimby's that would be entirely against any development in my own neighbourhood over 6-8 storeys.

Why my opinion is not incongruent is that Toronto's built form will always be massively dominated by structures below 3 storeys. This is best. However, diversity in many of it's forms is what makes a city or urban area great. Tall buildings belong in this mix where appropriate. As many here have commented if we are going tall we should push for the best design possible and push for infrastructure and city services to appropriately reflect the increase in density.

Speaking of density, I actually find the density in this block to be excessive. I would prefer fewer, taller buildings. I know people here generally don't believe in the concept of excessive density but it does exist in Asia and it supresses the quality of the urban environment.

Those are my general comments, although this is largely just speculative. I would not expect to see anything built here until the next real estate cycle.

Why could NYMBYs object highrises at 1 Yonge? Not many NYMBYs live near it, right?

While Toronto is "massively dominated by structures below 3 storeys" (very unfortunately), our downtown, particularly near the subway lines, shouldn't. I don't think it is appropriate to building anything below 20 storeys within the Jarvis/Spadina core.

I agree with you that excessive density in parts of Asia reduced the quality of life, however, in the case of Toronto, the density can be easily increased by 2-3 times and our life can only be better (be reminded again Paris has 5-6X of our density and I don't consider it an overly crowded city). I don't believe any neighbourhood in Toronto has anything close to "excessive density".
 
the same NIMBYs that showed up for ten york and harbour plaza will likely show up here again. that is the NIMBY group that I am thinking of.
 
Why can't we get a tower with a beautiful crown? I'm tired of seeing one flat top after another. Nothing beats the beauty of a crown like the one on the Chrysler Building. A few distinctive crowns would make a world of difference to our skyline. (along with some decorative lighting)

^^This is exactly what Im saying!!!

I sure wish some of our latest buildings constructed had some unique top feature to them. With the exception of Trump and maybe the topping out L Tower, every other building is a flat box on top. I wish the Four Seasons had some type of "pointyness", which makes it really stand out even more in the Yorkville skyline and would compliment well with the upcoming One Bloor and other proposals in that area. Even the Telus tower had a antenna or something in the original design that was scraped. Though the Telus Tower isn't really tall, it still would give it a separate distinct appearance from the other buildings in that area (18 York, Delta, Bremner Office Tower etc)

I mean... you look at New York City where they have nice evening decorative lighting on various towers of all shapes and sizes, and then Chicago where they have beautiful lit up antennas in unison on the Aon Center, Sears Tower etc. and other features. Toronto needs something of their own because all we have that is distinctly lit up at night or has a distinctiveness top feature to it to separate it from the rest is the CN Tower off the top of my head at the moment. I love the my city's skyline, but I want to love it even more.
 
Last edited:
Speaking of density, I actually find the density in this block to be excessive. I would prefer fewer, taller buildings. I know people here generally don't believe in the concept of excessive density but it does exist in Asia and it supresses the quality of the urban environment.

Those are my general comments, although this is largely just speculative. I would not expect to see anything built here until the next real estate cycle.

Excessive density is in the eye of the beholder. For an octogenarian NIMBY any density is excessive, as long as it is in the neighbourhood s/he resides in.

For me, "excessive density" is not a product of the net residential units per square area nor even of office development but of the throngs of people, traffic, noise and light pollution that come from dense retail environments. There are residential neighbourhoods like the mid-level blocks of Sheung Wan, Hong Kong that probably have a population density approaching 70,000/km2 but they were relatively quiet with little car traffic and even the occasional tree to soften the landscape. Some of these streets felt as bucolic as Cabbagetown.

The Eaton Centre and surrounding Yonge street on the weekend before Christmas, however, can be pretty claustrophobic and sometimes I wish that this retail environment were spread over more blocks.
 
Not too hard to find.
China: Dalian, Shenyang
South Korea: Goyang
Thailand: Bangkok
Philipines: Manila
Malaysia: Kuala Lumpur
Americas: Panama City

These are comparable to Toronto's size (or smaller) and have similar number of 150M+, 200M+ buildings under construction.
I am not saying Toronto's current boom is not great and encouraging, just that it is not such a big deal or something not seen anywhere esle as many here seem to believe.





Except for Shenyang china, Toronto has more buildings under construction over 150m then all of those places.
 
Except for Shenyang china, Toronto has more buildings under construction over 150m then all of those places.

thanks.
I only wanted to point out that there are quite a few other cities which are constructing a lot of highrise buildings as well. Toronto is doing great, but it is not unique.
I will stop here on this topic since this thread is about 1 Yonge st.
 
the same NIMBYs that showed up for ten york and harbour plaza will likely show up here again. that is the NIMBY group that I am thinking of.
One could understand their arguments for some things. Like lack of transit to get people moving quickly in this area.
 
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.
Perhaps these community meetings should be displayed on our website in an events forum or thread or page? I know that I've received some of the letters, but they typically only get sent to the community the development is impacting. Do I have the right to show up at a community event I don't live or work in?
 
One could understand their arguments for some things. Like lack of transit to get people moving quickly in this area.

sorry, but i don't. this is literally right beside a freeway, and about a 3 minute walk from the largest transit centre in the country. fairly well covered IMO.
 

Back
Top