Lenser said:
I strongly disagree! It's a slab, yes, but a very sharp-looking one. The very width of the thing shouldn't be automatically discounted against it. It's got its own thing going on, which I applaud. We want robust variety, not utter cookie-cutter clutter.
Click to expand...
Yup, I think there's value in having some wide, beefy towers on the skyline. I wouldn't want all the buildings to be wide, and I wouldn't want all the buildings to be pencil-thin either. (Honestly I think people here focus too much on shape and silhouette, the way buildings look on the skyline, and not enough on texture, materiality, the way buildings meet the street.)
 
Future tower site, its going to be a Beast?
178076
 
smably said:
(Honestly I think people here focus too much on shape and silhouette, the way buildings look on the skyline, and not enough on texture, materiality, the way buildings meet the street.)
Click to expand...
That's true, but the former regards how a building looks from a distance, whereas the latter speaks to how it looks up-close. Both are important considerations, but I would argue that the former is more critical.
 
I disagree. Viewing buildings from a distance is entirely different and is at the mercy of variables like weather and one's vantage point; depending on where you are standing in the city, there's an infinitude of skylines to behold. But how a building looks up close, in direct relation to the street and its neighbours - that's very important. I don't even weigh one over the other, though; they are all considerations. But surely no one save skyline junkies could seriously argue that how a building comes across in its immediate area is less important than how it looks from some distant vantage point, however slick or romantic that point might be.
 
This tower is far from being approved as is. I expect there will be changes regarding the building itself, and the city's take on the proposal. A year from now we should have a better idea of the final iteration.
 
Any notes from the DRP on this one?

Also, the minutes from these meetings seem to take forever to go up... the last updated minutes was for the july meeting
 
OakvilleGreg1 said:
Wish they were spanning the rail corridor like CIBC is on the east side of Union Station...
Click to expand...

Decking the rail corridor should be a requirement for approval for any tall development alongside it. Sooner or later, we’d have a continuous RailDeck Park. The Well was the first missed major opportunity. I hope that the city wakes up this in time for this project.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top