Canadian Skyline Thread III - Page 49

isaidso · #**961** Posted **Mar 21, 2024, 11:19 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by rousseau

The only solution is for Toronto to keep building towers until they bump up en masse against natural or articficial borders. There's a reason no one really cares about Sao Paolo's skyline, after all.

There are very clearly defined areas where tall buildings are permitted in Toronto. They're not allowed to be put randomly like in Houston or Sao Paolo. There are sharp borders all over the place (High Park, Allan Gardens, Queens Park, Dundas Square, Moss Park, Nathan Phillips Square, etc). The difference in Toronto vs European cities is that Toronto is still being built out while those much older European cities got built out decades/centuries ago. The juxtaposition/borders in European cities are, predictably, more extreme/noticeable. That doesn't mean Toronto won't end up in the same place.

The downtown is going to keep filling in with towers till they bump up against the lake to the south, roughly Davenport to the north, University Avenue to the west, and Jarvis to the east while butting up against the many 'breaks' that already exist. Areas like the Annex, Cabbagetown, University of Toronto, etc. will create increasingly visible 'borders' between high-rise/midrise and low rise. Beyond downtown, arterial roads are earmarked for intensification as are major intersections which, in many cases, are where 2 or more transit corridors meet.

We will end up with what looks like a grid when viewed from above: density along the north/south roads and low rise inside these 'squares'. You can already see one of those squares forming in your photo above (bounded by Avenue, Bloor, Davenport, Spadina). Unless of course, we cave to growing pressure to open up parks/squares or low rise residential neighbourhoods like High Park, the Beaches, or Trinity Bellwoods to re-development. A huge mistake imo and something we can't ever un-do.

Toronto is a planned city. Toronto intensification may look random to someone who doesn't know what they're looking at but it's not at all.

rousseau · #**962** Posted **Mar 21, 2024, 11:50 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by isaidso

There are very clearly defined areas where tall buildings are allowed in Toronto. It absolutely is NOT the case that they're allowed to be put randomly like happens in Houston or Sao Paolo.

My point was that Toronto's skyline doesn't have clearly defined edges or borders. I'm talking about aesthetics.

Nouvellecosse · #**963** Posted **Mar 22, 2024, 1:36 AM**

I actually enjoy seeing both a gradual transition between tall and short areas as well as abrupt boundaries. Gradual transitions can make a city seem larger since the taller, grander parts of a city seem endless psychologically since there's no clearly discernible end. It's like how music producers introduced the "fade out" end to songs which increased their popularity by keeping the song stuck in people's heads. Without there being a defined end, the mind thought the song was still going. And chaos also adds a certain sense of grandeur. As if the city is so robust and dynamic, it can't help but thrust out in all directions. It's an unbridled beast. But clearly defined boundaries makes a city seem much more tame.

But on the other hand, a clearly defined boundary gives such a well composed view of the skyline. You get to see really tall individual buildings better without smaller buildings interfering with the view. Like in Chicago along the boundary with Grant and Millenium Parks. Buildings often gradually drop in quality, size and general impressiveness as you move away from the center so being able to see the most impressive buildings lined up front and center is very cool. And fairly unique as well. But of course, Chicago has both. So perhaps it's the best of both worlds.

Repthe250 · #**964** Posted **Mar 22, 2024, 2:21 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by MonkeyRonin

The point being that the population of a suburb is irrelevant. A suburb only exists as part of a larger entity and is therefore affected by the population & development patterns of that metropolitan area - not the population contained within that suburban jurisdiction alone (the boundaries of which being fairly arbitrary).

If New Westminster were a standalone city of 80,000 people it would be a very impressive skyline. But it's not. It's just one of many similar high-rise nodes throughout Metro Van; one that just so happens to be contained within a geographically constricted municipality. Its skyline would look the same though whether New West were the size of Surrey, or if were cut in half; because the potential demand for towers is not induced solely from within the municipality.

It’s a suburban skyline

that was my point. I just threw in the population for comparison. Not sure why you need to pick my comment apart.

rousseau · #**965** Posted **Mar 22, 2024, 2:30 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

I actually enjoy seeing both a gradual transition between tall and short areas as well as abrupt boundaries.

I do, too, but I would argue that Toronto doesn't have much in the way of gradual transitions. Instead, it has haphazard dribs and drabs leaking out from the major clusters.

There's an eccentricity to Toronto's skyline that is unwieldy and a bit crazy. I kinda like that, and I don't want to sound like I'm complaining too much here, but I also can't help feeling that it lacks gravitas.

It's a bit Canuck goofy compared to, say, this:

niwell · #**966** Posted **Mar 22, 2024, 12:32 PM**

From an aesthetic perspective I love Chicago's sharp skyline transitions. However on foot I do feel like the downtown area feels much more disjointed from the rest of the city than in Toronto. Even in River North there seems to be more of a psychogeographical boundary than aerial shots would suggest (less than in previous years though). It's increasingly difficult to pinpoint exactly where downtown begins and ends in Toronto which is always a cool effect when cycling through or just exploring. Montreal is similar in this respect. I also enjoyed that aspect of Boston when I was there a few weeks back.

There's probably a reason I haven't spent much time in the Loop on my many visits to Chicago. Pretty much the first time and subsequent visits with people who have never been. Most of my time has been spent in various surrounding neighbourhoods, where it is always very cool to see the skyline looming over. Closest experience in Toronto IMO is looking down Dundas West towards downtown between Dufferin/Dovercourt - there's a slight hill and the off-grid alignment of Dundas gives you a clear shot into the financial district.

The fisheye effect of google maps doesn't do it justice: https://maps.app.goo.gl/5bvBAsFrHRk63MDb9

Zeej · #**967** Posted **Mar 22, 2024, 12:53 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by niwell

Closest experience in Toronto IMO is looking down Dundas West towards downtown between Dufferin/Dovercourt - there's a slight hill and the off-grid alignment of Dundas gives you a clear shot into the financial district.

The fisheye effect of google maps doesn't do it justice: https://maps.app.goo.gl/5bvBAsFrHRk63MDb9

Truly a wonderful big city view. During my time in Toronto, if I was passing by Dundas/Dufferin, I would always pause for a moment to take the view in.

MolsonExport · #**968** Posted **Mar 22, 2024, 1:09 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by niwell

From an aesthetic perspective I love Chicago's sharp skyline transitions. However on foot I do feel like the downtown area feels much more disjointed from the rest of the city than in Toronto. Even in River North there seems to be more of a psychogeographical boundary than aerial shots would suggest (less than in previous years though). It's increasingly difficult to pinpoint exactly where downtown begins and ends in Toronto which is always a cool effect when cycling through or just exploring. Montreal is similar in this respect. I also enjoyed that aspect of Boston when I was there a few weeks back.

There's probably a reason I haven't spent much time in the Loop on my many visits to Chicago. Pretty much the first time and subsequent visits with people who have never been. Most of my time has been spent in various surrounding neighbourhoods, where it is always very cool to see the skyline looming over. Closest experience in Toronto IMO is looking down Dundas West towards downtown between Dufferin/Dovercourt - there's a slight hill and the off-grid alignment of Dundas gives you a clear shot into the financial district.

The fisheye effect of google maps doesn't do it justice: https://maps.app.goo.gl/5bvBAsFrHRk63MDb9

that link gives me major Montreal-ish vibes.

Nouvellecosse · #**969** Posted **Mar 22, 2024, 1:11 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by rousseau

I do, too, but I would argue that Toronto doesn't have much in the way of gradual transitions. Instead, it has haphazard dribs and drabs leaking out from the major clusters.

There's an eccentricity to Toronto's skyline that is unwieldy and a bit crazy. I kinda like that, and I don't want to sound like I'm complaining too much here, but I also can't help feeling that it lacks gravitas.

Yeah I feel like Toronto is in a sort of transitional phase. It used to have quite a sharp boundary to the east and west. Looking down, say Adelaide from the east made it seem like Scotia Plaza was rising suddenly from the lowrise cityscape. But now that the inner city outside the CBD is filling out more, the transition is softened. But it's still much less gradual than in some cities. So right now it isn't really one or the other.

Acajack · #**970** Posted **Mar 22, 2024, 1:13 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

that link gives me major Montreal-ish vibes.

Yeah, looking east down Mont-Royal you'd just need to replace First Canadian Place (BMO) with the Big O's tower.

kool maudit · #**971** Posted **Mar 22, 2024, 1:44 PM**

Coming in along Sherbrooke West over the Decarie has some of that, too.

hipster duck · #**972** Posted **Mar 22, 2024, 4:24 PM**

Toronto has two very conspicuous "zones" of sharp transition from skyscrapers to low rise neighbourhoods.

One is the area around Grange Park, where Queen Street West and McCaul Street are the "walls" preventing skyscraper spillover from the south and east. It used to continue north through U of T to Bloor, but there's a line of condo and apartment towers being built along College street now. But not further south.

The other is Toronto's "black hole for development" - a rectangle on the east side bounded by Jarvis, Queen, Parliament and Wellesley.

Contrary to the idea that zones of low density are made up of rich owner occupiers, both areas are actually quite poor and mostly made up of renters. They're both full of rooming houses cheap student apartments, and homeless shelters. For the Jarvis-Queen-Parliament-Wellesley area, I don't think many developers even expressed any interest in building condos here until very recently. There's probably more demand to build tall buildings in the Grange Park area, but that neighbourhood had a pretty significant NIMBY presence until recently. In any case, if you have to go through the trouble of assembling tight lots full of rental units in converted semis and townhomes that need to be replaced on a 1-for-1 basis, it might not pencil out unless you build a really gigantic development.