The south tower could potentially still be 171 meters tall.....192-6x3.5m=171 meters
Not to shabby, Burano at 50s (2s shorter) is 163 meters
 
Last edited:
sjbdtz said:
I'm sorry. This building is here now (and I bought resale, not new). I didn't even know about my building pre-build, I've been a 'house' guy.

But within a 4 block radius of where I am, there are proposed (or underway):

78 stories at Aura,
52
48 stories at 501
45 stories at Five
Whatever happens at 460 Yonge
The Grenville Dev.
The 3 x 50s buildings on Howard
The proposed 45s building on Bloor west of Sherbourne
A 32s building at Church south of Carleton
The 3 buildings proposed south of Wellesley Station
The revamp of Sutton Place hotel
Whatever happens at Wellesley West "green space" between Yonge & Bay
Chas
X2
Couture


I think that's an AWFUL lot of people introduced into a compact(ish) area. Which is why I consider some of it superfluous.


And I'm sure I missed some projects.


As for blocking my view....unlikely. I have historic mansions on Jarvis which are unlikely to move, a historic high school across the street,
25-30s condos behind the school.... this view is relatively protected.
Click to expand...
What is it about that list that makes you think it's too much? What will the population density be after those projects are completed (assuming they're all approved) and how does that compare to the downtowns of other major world cities? What's the maximum amount of density that's acceptable in a big city downtown? What analysis lead to your conclusion other than a gut feeling?
 
Mr F, you say that I forgot about winter when expressing a desire for more shade from buildings. I feel the same way about shade haters; they seem to forget about summer. And anyway, again, I can't fathom caring more about perpetually sunny streets than about extreme density. The latter seems far more beneficial to me. It's not like Manhattan never gets sun, but they get less of it, and I think all the benefits of its built form hugely outweigh the sunniness that it precludes.
 
Funny then that setbacks on tall buildings were formally codified in Manhattan to mitigate and maximize sunlight.
 
I'll just briefly wade in here with the following point. Surely not everyone here will agree with me, but I think that Manhattan is one of the most beautiful places in the world. It's mesmerizing. And the street wall at times seems endless. The buildings mountain over you; it's an amazing experience.

And all of that happens still, on most streets, without sacrificing the street experience. And to be honest, I don't even notice being in the shade most of the time, as I'm so taken by my surroundings.

My 2 cents.
 
Miscreant said:
I'll just briefly wade in here with the following point. Surely not everyone here will agree with me, but I think that Manhattan is one of the most beautiful places in the world. It's mesmerizing. And the street wall at times seems endless. The buildings mountain over you; it's an amazing experience.

And all of that happens still, on most streets, without sacrificing the street experience. And to be honest, I don't even notice being in the shade most of the time, as I'm so taken by my surroundings.

My 2 cents.
Click to expand...

I go out into the wilderness, there's sunlight.

I go out onto the lake, there's sunlight.

I go out onto the beach, there's sunlight.

I go into the country-side, there's sunlight.

I go to small towns, there's sunlight.

I go into the outer suburbs, there's sunlight.

I go into the inner suburbs, there's sunlight.

I go into the parks, there's sunlight.

When I go anywhere on 99.9% of this planet, there is sunlight.

But when I go to the downtown of a major metropolis, it's the one place on earth I'm not going for the sunlight. I'm going for the sheer overwhelming and mesmerizing size and mass of the city itself. I want a cityscape that blocks out the sky with its very presence.
When I'm downtown, I want to feel hemmed in by the city and its endless canyons and streetwalls. Every time I see a tower eat up a little more blue sky, I'm pleased. But that's just me.
 
arvelomcquaig said:
Mr F, you say that I forgot about winter when expressing a desire for more shade from buildings. I feel the same way about shade haters; they seem to forget about summer. And anyway, again, I can't fathom caring more about perpetually sunny streets than about extreme density. The latter seems far more beneficial to me. It's not like Manhattan never gets sun, but they get less of it, and I think all the benefits of its built form hugely outweigh the sunniness that it precludes.
Click to expand...
Why would you think I'm forgetting about summer? As I've said before on this forum, there are other ways of creating shade that aren't permanent and take into account Toronto's cold winters. Madrid, a primarily low rise city with hotter summers than Toronto, puts giant translucent tarps over their busiest pedestrian streets in the summer. Street trees and awnings provide summer shade without turning the streets into cold, dark spaces from November to April. Look, I know people on this site are in love with New York skyscraper canyons, but most people like the sun. Even downtown.
 
I don't mind the height decrease of the one tower, nor do i actually mind the design these towers bring in general. minimalistic, and still better than so many project designs/copy pastes we've been getting, (although i will say, if all 4 sides had wrap around balconies. i would hate it.. thank god 1 of their sides don't have em)

This will prob end up being like a Murano for Yonge Street,

I want to see this go forward, and see the site redeveloped ASAP.
 
MisterF said:
Look, I know people on this site are in love with New York skyscraper canyons, but most people like the sun. Even downtown.
Click to expand...

You can get plenty of sun at Queen's Park, the Islands and the Waterfront. Not all of the CBD has to be lit up with sunlight.
 
501 Yonge is kilometres from the CBD. It may be in the core but, it isn't Bloor & Yonge or Bay & King either. The area is quite established with condo towers with lower density than what is proposed. I think the reduction is significant and an acceptable compromise between the city and developer. My biggest concern is the block sized podium. I hope there is variation among the CRUs. One only needs to look towards Vancouver for inspiration.

I presume people desire Manhattanization not realizing the city excels at building streetwalls in the 40 to 65 metre range. Those height limits are also largely adhere to unlike Toronto where 50 storey towers rise beside mid-rises.
 
The_Architect said:
You can get plenty of sun at Queen's Park, the Islands and the Waterfront. Not all of the CBD has to be lit up with sunlight.
Click to expand...
You can design high rise districts to allow the sun to reach the street while creating a proper urban streetwall. Since New York seems to be the standard everyone's comparing to, they pioneered that kind of design. Blocking out the sun from downtown streets is completely unnecessary.
 
Whether it was invented there or not, I don't remember any parts of Manhattan having an abundance of the sort of setbacked, skinny-tower-sprouting-from-fat-podium form that I complain about. I use Manhattan as an example because everyone I encounter seems to believe tall buildings preclude good neighbourhoods, vibrant retail, etc., and Manhattan is the only place I've been where tall buildings are the overwhelming norm, and yet the neighbourhoods are simultaneously the most beautiful and vibrant I've ever seen.

Ramako, I feel the same way: Every time I see a lot of sky downtown it bothers me because it seems like a huge waste of vertical space, and every time I see another building announced I get excited about the piece of sky that it will cover. I want the city (or at least the core) to swallow people into it like a cave, providing a sense of intimacy and shelter.
 
arvelomcquaig said:
Every time I see a lot of sky downtown it bothers me because it seems like a huge waste of vertical space, and every time I see another building announced I get excited about the piece of sky that it will cover. I want the city (or at least the core) to swallow people into it like a cave, providing a sense of intimacy and shelter.
Click to expand...

Different strokes for different folks, which is what the city is all about. Not everyone will subscribe to that vision. Some would find the notion of a city which swallows people would induce a sense of smothering confinement... whereas your scenario posits the sky itself as being a threatening agent. Surely there's room for natural elements in any city mix.

Regardless, I'm assuming you still applaud the increase of taller towers in the GTA, even if you dislike how (relatively) little of the sky they obliterate.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top