I like to see a slab base for the first 4-8 floor. Then a step back for the next 4-6 floors for mid density building. Retail does not have to be 100% of this base with walk up residents unites using that other space. You can only have so much retail before you start to kill it.

Then you space the taller tower along this base. Shear walls will create the canyon effect.

The length of the slab base needs to be look closely at as a long block will require long walking distance to get to the other side. It cannot look the same 100% either.

I have not nor do I like stand along buildings plunk down without any thought to the street edge. These 2 buildings are an example that should not be use nor should happen in the first place.

There is a lot of wasted space both at ground level as well below ground level. If both developers has stop long enough from trying to out do each other, they could had gain more parking space and space below ground using the same foundation design and lowering their cost.

At grade level, there would have been a continue edge even with the 2 designs and more unites to sell.

If anyone took in the Designing Transit City Symposium on Friday, The example present by Paris shows some real thinking and vision that is lost here.

We have to start looking how we create a place where people live, work, play in the same place not a place to live or white collar jobs and living in the same place. We need the blue collar jobs, schools, rec centre, etc been part of these places.
 
corridor_dweller said:
Regarding the slab vs point tower debate....

I think point towers are favoured because they have less of an impact on the street environment. Slabs lined up along the street shoulder to shoulder, as they are on Carlton between Yonge and Church, make for a long dark canyon. A point tower on a podium maintains the street wall, while the breaks between the skinny towers let some light in. Also, when viewed from a distance they don't obscure the view the way a row of slabs do.
Click to expand...

I agree with you %100... However 2 points that still bother me.

First, I thought a canyon effect was THE most desirable thing this side of Manhattan. I mean, that's all I ever read in these posts and on SSP. Canyon this and Canyon that.... "Awww Yonge Street doesn't have a good canyon effect..." The lament goes. So why should that stop developers?

And secondly... Developers could care less about light, views or any other aesthetic. Money, MONEY MONEY $$$$$$$$ is the only end to their means.

So I still need to hear a substantial financial benefit for not using more of the land with bigger buildings.

The closest I've gotten is what Redroom Studios said... and I paraphrase. "A bigger building would need to be shorter for density reasons and the developer would miss out on charging premiums for higher floors."

(I still think density is never an issue when you have deep pockets to pay off City Hall.)
 
Traynor said:
I agree with you %100... However 2 points that still bother me.

First, I thought a canyon effect was THE most desirable thing this side of Manhattan. I mean, that's all I ever read in these posts and on SSP. Canyon this and Canyon that.... "Awww Yonge Street doesn't have a good canyon effect..." The lament goes. So why should that stop developers?

And secondly... Developers could care less about light, views or any other aesthetic. Money, MONEY MONEY $$$$$$$$ is the only end to their means.

So I still need to hear a substantial financial benefit for not using more of the land with bigger buildings.

The closest I've gotten is what Redroom Studios said... and I paraphrase. "A bigger building would need to be shorter for density reasons and the developer would miss out on charging premiums for higher floors."

(I still think density is never an issue when you have deep pockets to pay off City Hall.)
Click to expand...

Firstly, maybe for like minded people on the skyscraper forums the cannon effect is an important feature to a street scape but in the general public, and as far as the City is concerned, in most circumstances this is something that is not seen as a positive. The effects of shadowing streets often comes up during the planning approvals process. For example, one of the main reasons M5V ended up being such a battle at the OMB was because the city didn't want to see the north side of king street shadowed by new skyscrapers on the south side of the street.

Secondly, while developers may not care about those things as far as their bottom line is concerned, they actually have to get their buildings approved in order to build them and thus these issue have to be addressed to appease the concerns of residents and city staff. So in effect, they care because they have to care.

And finally, no one is paying off city hall. Take the time to follow a project from start to finish in the planning approvals process and you'll see that virtually every project has to make some concession in terms of height or setbacks or some other factor that is of concern to the community or city staff. If some one was simply paying off city hall none of this would be necessary and even if you were right it still wouldn't address the possibility of an appeal to the OMB.
 
Traynor said:
And secondly... Developers could care less about light, views or any other aesthetic. Money, MONEY MONEY $$$$$$$$ is the only end to their means.

(I still think density is never an issue when you have deep pockets to pay off City Hall.)
Click to expand...

First of all many developers care a lot about the structures they build and the legacy they leave behind - many are very passionate about their industry. Obviously it's a business, like any other and a business case must be made for most decisions.

The suggestion that the development approvals process is governed by brown paper envelops is ridiculous - especially given how difficult, expensive and lengthy the approvals process is in this city and province. This isn't Columbia or some third world country.
 
Walking by today it looked like they're 2 or 3 floors past the first small setback on the east side now. It's nothing too dramatic (it only steps in a few feet), but that means they're only a couple more floors way from the more another more pronounced setback.
 
casaguy said:
Couldn't help but laugh at this shot. Was the irony intentional?
Click to expand...

Redroom Studios said:
I'm not sure what you mean? Clearly Uptown Residences will be much taller than the Taj Mahal!:rolleyes:
Click to expand...
possibly referring to the india ad and how the project is by "burka" architects?

corridor_dweller said:
Regarding the slab vs point tower debate....
... Also, when viewed from a distance they don't obscure the view the way a row of slabs do.
Click to expand...
yeah, growing up in a community of homes that had just one of these ugly "slab" or wall-type towers smack dab in the middle kind of ruined things. Firstly, it was ugly. and secondly, it ruined many people's views of the lake. i hate hate hate slab builidngs.
 
4 December 2009 photo update

dsc01452f.jpg
 
I guess we just have to wait now for Uptown to catch up...

*I noticed that Uptown is about half way of Crystals height now... I doesn't seem too tall though considering it's about 1/3 way there!

oh well.. we'll see
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top