I'm guessing what we'll see is one or two towers less and permission for the remaining buildings to go higher, especially for the highest one - possibly making a more dramatic statement than what we're seeing in the original renders.
 
What’s wrong with it being this dense? Why not? I don’t understand. I would love this amount of density to happen; it’s gorgeously packed with humanity and architecture, and it’s a more efficient use of space, comprising a more progressive kind of growth.

Who would be harmed by the towers’ height or how close they are to each other? And would this harm outweigh the benefits?
 
There is an optimal level of density to consider. Too little could be construed as wasteful. Too much could overburden infrastructure that extends well beyond the development's footprint.
 
I've always thought that it would be cool if one of these mega developments decided to divide up the land and give each smaller section to a different architect. You could set a theme so that they would have some continuity, but the more random assortment of buildings would create a bore lively street environment and interesting pedestrian experience. It would also allow them to advertise several architects as a feature for prospective buyers.

Knowing that won't happen here though, my biggest hope is that the focus on the towers won't detract from the quality of the pedestrian realm. That said, bring on the height. As long as it isn't the only focus, I think height here is completely appropriate.
 
maestro said:
There is an optimal level of density to consider. Too little could be construed as wasteful. Too much could overburden infrastructure that extends well beyond the development's footprint.
Click to expand...


Usage and cost of infrastructure is partly why the City's plan calls for a moderation of height in this area.

Considering the site's proximity to the waterfront and lowrise neighbourhoods, I'm unsure as to how some individuals believe this is the "perfect" spot for a supertall. For skyscraper enthusiasts, perhaps, any spot is the perfect spot for a supertall?

Even if this site were limited to midrise buildings, it wouldn't be a waste of potential. Modest projects allow for real estate demand to be purchased through alternative developments: meaning more buildings. Midrise developments are easier for the markets (and governments) to handle.

In any event, I'm glad 1-7 Yonge will be highrises and I look forward to seeing more information. :)
 
I would like to see an iconic, coherent 'complex'.
Not twin towers.
Nor a bunch in sequence.
But a complex - akin to Battery Park, Tudor City, Rockefellar Centre, TD Centre where the whole exceeds the sum of the parts.
 
My other problem aside from the close proximity of 6 buildings is that the designs of each building seem too different from each other. You have the main tower with it's nice lines, then you have the two buildings with the funky shape at the top, and the rest just your average modern Toronto skyscraper.

Even though the buildings on their own look nice, there isn't any harmony among the designs and lines of each of the buildings.
 
It would be a shame to lose the central tall tower and the two twisted ones. I feel like the 4th tower is pretty dull, and isn't really shown in most of the renderings, I wouldn't mind if it was taken out of the plans, perhaps the developers have the same thought. Seems like people care the least for it.
 
acornman said:
My other problem aside from the close proximity of 6 buildings is that the designs of each building seem too different from each other. You have the main tower with it's nice lines, then you have the two buildings with the funky shape at the top, and the rest just your average modern Toronto skyscraper.

Even though the buildings on their own look nice, there isn't any harmony among the designs and lines of each of the buildings.
Click to expand...

I'm actually fine with each building having a completely different design, so long as they don't clash with each other. IMO anyway we already have far too many twin/triplet towers along the waterfront, and it would be nice to see a little more diversity.
 
acornman said:
My other problem aside from the close proximity of 6 buildings is that the designs of each building seem too different from each other. You have the main tower with it's nice lines, then you have the two buildings with the funky shape at the top, and the rest just your average modern Toronto skyscraper.

Even though the buildings on their own look nice, there isn't any harmony among the designs and lines of each of the buildings.
Click to expand...

good, there's too much samey crap in the area already
 
The design is one thing, the choice of materials is another - the area can use something more than various shades of grey/blue-green-aqua. Something warm would do the waterfront wonders.

AoD
 
P23 said:
good, there's too much samey crap in the area already
Click to expand...

I wasn't exactly saying that the towers should all be identical, but rather the designs should work together in some manner instead of just being a hodge podge of random buildings.
 
acornman said:
My other problem aside from the close proximity of 6 buildings is that the designs of each building seem too different from each other.
Click to expand...

If that wasn't the case, then someone else would complain that they look to similar to each other.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top