The City won't accept diminished sunlight on the greenhouse in Allan Gardens. That won't be the only measure they apply to this proposal, but the shadows here will stand tall in the deliberations.

We've got lots of other space to grow up. If in 20 years Allan Gardens still has sunlight on it, I won't think of the shorter buildings surrounding the park as a waste of valuable real estate, but as saviours of it.

42
 
This building looks super slim and people here are already in a panic mode talking sunlight and shadows without even knowing for sure and for how long.....25-30s here would still be too tall for many
 
Makes absolutely no sense. Toronto isn't a blank slate. There are established contexts which new development should adhere to instead of trying to rewrite. We aren't short on space. There will never be a time where 25 storeys is considered a waste for space and who would want that anyways besides you. Have you even being to Manhattan? A couple billionaire's club, stuper tall towers doesn't represent how much context and heritage is a huge thing there. What you're talking about is the new skyscraper subdivision in Dubai.

You're emphasizes height over sound planning. I can't think of anything more shallow to base a city on. There are more great cities without a 170 metre tower than there are great cities with 300 metre towers. 500 to 700 metres is really out of touch with reality. Our government nor our Queen will ever sponsor one of those.

Please stop trying to justify your fixation with extreme heights by pretending you know more about city building than others.
 
Last edited:
Having some tall buildings in the right context is cool, but I really don't care about how tall things are anymore. It's gotten boring. Toronto's best urban environments are not its tallest. Would central Paris benefit by building skyscrapers everywhere? Does Shibuya, Tokyo need to be taller? Toronto isn't SimCity.
 
I don't mind the tower but it looks ridiculous at that location. At least show that you care somewhat about the surrounding area?

No effs were given here.
 
Automation Gallery said:
Lol
Click to expand...

Thanks. It was meant to be funny; hyperbolic. It goes with the zany post that context is being shortsighted to the future of Toronto. Few if any of these super stuper talls towers would be built without government funds. The government runs the show in China. The various monarchs run the shows in the Middle East. That's easily over 90% of these tall towers right there.
 
Waterloo_Guy said:
Having some tall buildings in the right context is cool, but I really don't care about how tall things are anymore. It's gotten boring. Toronto's best urban environments are not its tallest. Would central Paris benefit by building skyscrapers everywhere? Does Shibuya, Tokyo need to be taller? Toronto isn't SimCity.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Toronto's best looking and most vibrant neighbourhoods actually lack towers completely.
 
I agree, the best spaces in this city (and in many other cities) are the ones not completely taken over by tall buildings and where there is a much more intimate relationship between buildings, the street and their context, but saying that there is no precedent for this height in this location is wrong. One only has to look a little south to Jarvis and Dundas where there are a handful of projects all around this height. Not just proposed, but finished and under development. For better or for worse, those developments have set a precedent for the area and are now part of the local context.
 
I think what makes Toronto is its quirky intimate streets lined with unsightly hydro wires and ineresting shops that are one block away from international style glass towers with basic chain retail. I also think that in the future the city will grow much more like a Chicago than a Manhattan
 
JOAMA said:
I also think that in the future the city will grow much more like a Chicago than a Manhattan
Click to expand...

Genuinely interested.... in what way will it be more like Chicago? Boom-bust rather than slow burn?
 
We already are very different to Chicago in the way that we have several nodes and sub-centres. If anything we are more similar to Los Angeles in that respect. I think Toronto is actually rather neat, it's almost like an in-between between Chicago School's Concentric zone model and LA School's post-modern, mutli-nodal city where we have a pre-automobile CBD but also many other centres that are downtown-like, but not nearly as spaced out as LA.
 
Be bad news for urbantoronto as Toronto is, currently, much more pro-highrise than Chicago.
 
torontologist said:
Genuinely interested.... in what way will it be more like Chicago? Boom-bust rather than slow burn?
Click to expand...

I meant in a geographic way we sort of have a lot of room like Chicago, also we r situated on along a lake. So I think of Chicago when I try to think of a city similar to Toronto. But I think/hope Toronto will have a "slow burn" that would be more interesting than a "boom and bust cycle"
 
Canadian Chocho said:
We already are very different to Chicago in the way that we have several nodes and sub-centres. If anything we are more similar to Los Angeles in that respect. I think Toronto is actually rather neat, it's almost like an in-between between Chicago School's Concentric zone model and LA School's post-modern, mutli-nodal city where we have a pre-automobile CBD but also many other centres that are downtown-like, but not nearly as spaced out as LA.
Click to expand...

Toss in some English-style clusters of tower blocks sprinkled around the city as well.

Our multi-nodal system + the substantial number of residents those towers house help transit be far more viable and heavily used in Toronto than in most US cities.

The Avenue Development guidelines will further differentiate Toronto from other North American cities considering the number of mid-rise developments under construction or in the pipeline as well.

Overall, I think that the current low-rise areas of Toronto (i.e. detached houses) will more or less remain the same since they're very desirable as-is (and the structure of the streets in the suburbs prevent densification), while our arterial corridors will be filled out with a combination of highrises and mid-rises. Finally, hubs like Yonge-Sheppard and Yonge-Eglinton will continue to densify outwards, consuming low-rise areas in the process.

Not quite Chicago, not quite Los Angeles, but very much a Toronto thing.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top