[MisterF]

I wouldn't be so sure that the OMB will approve this development. It tends to base its decisions on municipal policies, unless it finds that the policies aren't sound. If the city has sound policies to back up its decision, there's no reason to think the OMB would go against that.

Otherwise, the city should get out of the way! This building is proposed for a vacant lot a two minute walk from one of our only subways. We can't not build transit and protect heritage and cap heights. Pick one!

Yes we can. Nearby subway lines don't automatically make high rises more desirable. Dozens of European cities show that. With an existing 4-5 storey streetscape to work with, there's plenty of room for density on this property without building a high rise.

I'm not sure I understand this fetish hereabouts that every building must blend in to context.

Using words like fetish to belittle someone's position does nothing to strengthen your own. I could just as easily say "I'm not sure I understand this fetish with height". But that wouldn't get us anywere would it?

Agreed. A tower built with Home Depot materials will cheapen the block. I think we'll deeply regret this in 10-20 years. Material quality is a far more important concern in this case than height.

The problem with this argument is that materials are easily changed late in the game, even during construction. That's very difficult for the city to control. Besides, a nice looking tower won't impact the character of the area any less than an ugly tower of the same height.

Certain areas aren't appropriate for skyscrapers, even if the area is only two blocks long and even if there are skyscrapers surrounding that area.

 

[grey]

The problem with this argument is that materials are easily changed late in the game, even during construction. That's very difficult for the city to control.

Agreed. That's why I'm going by track record and hopes/dreams rather than concrete decisions that the city or OMB should make. I'm among the first to point out a building's inappropriate height, but my position is that the street presence has been addressed very well and the majority of people experiencing the street will not be impacted negatively by the building given the measures taken by the developer and architect.

And I think toto's largely ignored NYC example on the previous page was very fitting.

Besides, a nice looking tower won't impact the character of the area any less than an ugly tower of the same height.

Strongly disagree.



(This is where I'd list a dozen or so examples, but I don't have time right now so you'll have to use your imagination )

 

[urbandreamer]

^Yeah, what would you rather look at here: Kate Moss or Rosie O'donnell? A Boutique 3 or anything by anyone other than Clewes/Wallman/S+P and few others would look terrible here.--as they would anywhere.

 

[adma]

^Yeah, what would you rather look at here: Kate Moss or Rosie O'donnell?

...

 

[Tewder]

Using words like fetish to belittle someone's position does nothing to strengthen your own. I could just as easily say "I'm not sure I understand this fetish with height". But that wouldn't get us anywere would it?

No, not to belittle. The city is obsessed with building heights in the way not seen in other North American cities, as far as I can tell at least. Not always a bad thing, to be sure, but not always constructive either.

 

[Tewder]

Dancap has another site in mind at the moment...

That's exciting. Are you suggesting a new purpose-built theatre in the offing? Any other info'??

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

The city is obsessed with building heights in the way not seen in other North American cities, as far as I can tell at least. Not always a bad thing, to be sure, but not always constructive either.

There are many cases where towers are rejected on the basis of bad planning in other North American cities - e.g. in NYC (a Foster proposal, at that), Vancouver and SF (both of which is well known for fairly strict urban design regulations), etc. In fact, one can argue that Toronto has a below average amount of control over built form due in part to the OMB as well as a historical and consistent view of high rises being an appropriate built form in various locale of the city (other than the early reform years).

AoD

 

[MisterF]

^Yeah, what would you rather look at here: Kate Moss or Rosie O'donnell? A Boutique 3 or anything by anyone other than Clewes/Wallman/S+P and few others would look terrible here.--as they would anywhere.

What I mean is that a Clewes/Wallman/S+P tower would still alter the scale of the streetscape and overshadow its neighbours in the same way as any other tower. The scale alone, regardless of how it looks, would have an impact.

No, not to belittle. The city is obsessed with building heights in the way not seen in other North American cities, as far as I can tell at least. Not always a bad thing, to be sure, but not always constructive either.

Toronto is one of the most high rise friendly cities in the Western world. It has more skyscrapers under construction than almost anywhere else in the Americas and Europe. Every city has high rise restrictions - in American cities they're practically non-existent outside downtown cores. In Europe, even in relatively high rise friendly cities like London, there are large areas in the central core where you'd never be able to build a tower of this scale. In downtown Toronto those "no-go" areas are small, but this is one of them.

 

[Mike in TO]

That's exciting. Are you suggesting a new purpose-built theatre in the offing? Any other info'??

Sorry, but I can't post anything further that isn't in the public realm.

 

[tgam]

Yes we can. Nearby subway lines don't automatically make high rises more desirable. Dozens of European cities show that. With an existing 4-5 storey streetscape to work with, there's plenty of room for density on this property without building a high rise.

Toronto is not and never will be a European city. In Europe, urban neighbourhoods consists of warrens of narrow streets left over from earlier eras, ploughed through here and there by grand boulevards ordered by autocratic planners. In that context, five and six stories perfectly appropriate. In Toronto, even our side streets are wide enough for two semis to pass each other, and our planning rules that call for setbacks everywhere make the city seem more like an overgrown vilage than an urban centre--why do people in the downtown core need front yards? The streets themselves take up too much space for real urban density to take hold without going high. We have not had the benefit of being bombed by foreign powers so that we can remedy the errors of our planning history, so we will have to do it ourselves.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

tgam:

Toronto is not and never will be a European city. In Europe, urban neighbourhoods consists of warrens of narrow streets left over from earlier eras, ploughed through here and there by grand boulevards ordered by autocratic planners. In that context, five and six stories perfectly appropriate. In Toronto, even our side streets are wide enough for two semis to pass each other, and our planning rules that call for setbacks everywhere make the city seem more like an overgrown vilage than an urban centre--why do people in the downtown core need front yards? The streets themselves take up too much space for real urban density to take hold without going high. We have not had the benefit of being bombed by foreign powers so that we can remedy the errors of our planning history, so we will have to do it ourselves.

That is a false dichotomy, and demands that every part of the city must look hyperurban - besides, what is "real urban density" anyways? Is there a fundamental reason why having say a 15s tower on the site set back from the site while maintaining the 4-6s streetfront is any less desirable? Besides, King Street isn't University Avenue - it is narrow enough to be intimate at the 4-6s scale. In addition, the amount of space taken up by the streets isn't high enough to deny a significant amount of density.

AoD

 

[Urban Shocker]

I find the setback to be one of the most attractive aspects of this development - it maintains the traditional public/semi-public/private transition that was part of the look of Toronto in the very early days. Much of that 'semi-rural' form survives in the small scale residential neighbourhoods that ring the downtown - small front gardens, a semi-detached rather than row house form, and views between the buildings. I think we should treasure this heritage, sensible and civilised as it is, and employ it in larger scale developments if possible. The new forecourt of the redeveloped Conservatory of Music, the lead-up to the Gardiner Museum, the ROM's plaza, and the pedestrian walkways through the 18 Yorkville and the Radio City/Ballet School developments are all good examples.

 

[scarberiankhatru]

Anything much over 10-15 storeys could be "too tall," even with the tower set back aways from King. This is a real sliver tower, not some sun-blocking slab...if we're going to have contrast, lets have some real contrast. Discarding the forecourt nook and bringing the podium right out to King would help mask the height of the tower behind a beefier streetwall, but there is some precedence on this block for such nooks as it does not exactly have the flushest, most solid streetwall in the city. There's 'nooks' on each side of the Royal Alex, there's alleyways and all manner of stairways like the landing in front of Il Fornello and generally it's quite porous at street/eye level. I'd prefer the nook be used as a restaurant/bar patio and not a lawn, but a parkette could work if the materials are hard/sculptural with good lighting (like the Yorkville parkette on Cumberland).

 

[tgam]

That is a false dichotomy, and demands that every part of the city must look hyperurban

If King and Simcoe can't be hyperurban, where can? This development is a lot more respectful of "context" than everyone's beloved Casa, with it's hideous blocky podium.

As for streets not taking up space, do the math. Consider this figure:

Say it's a portion of city block 50m per side, 2500 m2 total. Two streets intersect at the centre. The black is built form, the white sidewalk and pavement. If the white areas are 15m wide, then the black areas total (17.5*17.5*4) = 1225 m2 - less than half the total area! If the white areas are 10m wide, the blak areas total (20*20*4) = 1600 m2, over 30% more area. That's significant.

I find the setback to be one of the most attractive aspects of this development - it maintains the traditional public/semi-public/private transition that was part of the look of Toronto in the very early days.

The examples you cite are elegantly paved and connect the architecture to the public realm. I suspect that the setback for Theatre Park was a sop to the city, which refused to take it--in any case there is a giant public square right across the street, even if no one ever uses it.

Most setbacks in Toronto are occupied by grubby, muddy bits of lawn (Casa, we're looking at you in five years!), cracked asphalt, concrete planters that never get tended, cheap rusty fences, or plaster statues of the Virgin Mary.

I'm Italian, I'm allowed to say that last one.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

If King and Simcoe can't be hyperurban, where can? This development is a lot more respectful of "context" than everyone's beloved Casa, with it's hideous blocky podium.

Umm, no - if you look at Casa you will have noticed that the area is made up of more or less apartment blocks of various heights - certainly this is the case for the block north and south of the site. That is not the case at all for the block bounded by King, Simcoe, Adelaide and John. And if you pay close attention to Casa, the scale of the podium itself is generally comparable to the height of the church and the Brutalist building next door. And not to mention, the area is zoned as mixed uses/apartment neighbourhoods in the OP.

Say it's a portion of city block 50m per side, 2500 m2 total. Two streets intersect at the centre. The black is built form, the white sidewalk and pavement. If the white areas are 15m wide, then the black areas total (17.5*17.5*4) = 1225 m2 - less than half the total area! If the white areas are 10m wide, the blak areas total (20*20*4) = 1600 m2, over 30% more area. That's significant.

And how does it prevent the city to be "dense"? Various parts of the city have dense street patterns and high population density - whereas other parts have low street density and low population density. If you really want to argue on such basis, you'd have to bring in other factors such as site coverage, FSI, etc. On top of that, please demostrate how this block will actually have a density that is less than desirable when the parking lots are filled in with something along the scale I have mentioned previously?

AoD