they should do the same as Mirvish-Gehry. drop one or two tower and then the taller one should be 300m+
 
ushahid said:
they should do the same as Mirvish-Gehry. drop one or two tower and then the taller one should be 300m+
Click to expand...

So which tower gets dropped? Got to keep the office tower. Hope to keep the tallest one, and even increase its height if possible. Hope to keep the two quasi-symmetrical bendy towers. So the second-tallest tower planned for the north-east position within the project can go, if it keeps the rest of the project intact.
 
"One Yonge Street". In a way, a gateway to Toronto and the whole province. They should build something exceptional here. A perfect place to stand out, including in height.
I'd like to see the original plan developed with maybe dropping one of the smaller buildings. Could also go with dropping one 80 and making the 88 a 100+
 
Why won’t this be accepted as proposed? This seems like an acceptable location for such a tall, dense proposal. Which NIMBYs will fight against height here, surrounded by highways, far from exclusively-residential areas, and close to so many other tall buildings?
 
The Lower Yonge Precinct Plan put together by the City and Waterfront Toronto calls for less density and less height on the site. It strikes me as too timid for the west end of the site extends as far east as Jarvis. This proposal should been seen as a chance to create a major landmark near the foot of Yonge Street, and the land should simply be recognized for its proximity to the core: this will be a short walk to Union through another PATH extension, and would also be a source of riders and capital funding for the Waterfront East LRT. Dropping the density significantly will be a wasted opportunity.

42
 
Density and height is less of an issue in this case than the positioning of the towers - which gives on the impression of cramming too much on the site (particularly south of proposed Harbour Street extension). They should remove one tower there and redistribute the density.

AoD
 
interchange42 said:
The Lower Yonge Precinct Plan put together by the City and Waterfront Toronto calls for less density and less height on the site. It strikes me as too timid for the west end of the site extends as far east as Jarvis. This proposal should been seen as a chance to create a major landmark near the foot of Yonge Street, and the land should simply be recognized for its proximity to the core: this will be a short walk to Union through another PATH extension, and would also be a source of riders and capital funding for the Waterfront East LRT. Dropping the density significantly will be a wasted opportunity.

42
Click to expand...


I am a major advocate for high density, so overall I agree with you. Major landmarks, though, to be fair, don't necessitate height.

Yes, we should consider this site's location relative to the core; however, the City's plan also considers this site's position adjacent to the low-rise neighbourhoods along the waterfront. A little bit of height moderation is understandable. Real estate opportunities are hardly being wasted in Toronto.

Despite any possible adjustments in building heights, we still do expect high-rise towers, just as we expect critics of these towers, regardless.
 
AlvinofDiaspar said:
Density and height is less of an issue in this case than the positioning of the towers - which gives on the impression of cramming too much on the site (particularly south of proposed Harbour Street extension). They should remove one tower there and redistribute the density.

AoD
Click to expand...


It would be interesting to see a rendering with the format of density you're describing.
With more towers, the developer may "inch" their way to greater heights -- while one tower less may imply a bulkier presence?
 
I've never been comfortable with the 6 tower plan as it seems to be too much packed into a small area (not because of the population density, but just the way it looks). I'd be happier with not just getting rid of one, but rather two of the buildings and spreading the rest out over the space. I wouldn't mind more height either.
 
The density proposed is an insane amount but can be mitigated with fewer, taller towers and a heightened overall podium. I struggled with Pinnacle building 70+ storeys though. 85 to 100 seems well out of their preferred range.
 
Last edited:
acornman said:
I'd be happier with not just getting rid of one, but rather two of the buildings and spreading the rest out over the space. I wouldn't mind more height either.
Click to expand...

Yeah 3 bldgs.:cool: and much more greenspace, a good spot for a couple supertalls (300-350m) and say one more 250m, and of course keep the plan for the 40s office bldg.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top