Canada's 50 Tallest Proposals

[MonkeyRonin]

Originally Posted by niwell

It constantly shocks me that people seem to want a proposal that flies in the face of existing zoning and planning studies to be supported by city staff. Seemingly because it looks cool and was proposed by a famous architect. The point of staff is to give unbiased opinions based on the existing policy framework. I mean, try applying that logic to other aspects of city building and you can see things getting scary.

Zoning regulations are all well and good*, the problem is the specific regulations that are at work at this location. This isn't Kensington or the Annex or a part of any of our other hundreds of square kilometres worth of low or mid-rise neighbourhoods - this is the downtown core. One filled with high-rises. And from the standpoint of ambiance and the pedestrian experience, there is an inconsequential distinction between being one of 150 m towers and one with 300 m towers.

The only valid concern is that the level of density would overwhelm the existing infrastructure - however, this is also a short-sighted one. The ~4,000 residents that would inhabit the towers as proposed would presumably be living elsewhere in the city otherwise, so from a municipal perspective, the amount of strain they'd place - and similarly, the amount of money which they'd contribute in property tax - would be the same. And it's ultimately more efficient to provide the necessary infrastructure and services within a more confined space (especially in an already-walkable, transit friendly area) than a dispersed one.


*In theory that is. In practice, Toronto's planning department seems far too rigidly concerned with height and density. Not concerned enough with things like architecture, street interaction, human scale, streetscaping, grandeur...y'know, good design. Planning isn't (or rather, shouldn't be) a science...something sternly numerical, in which all goals, guidelines, and rules are established though "studies". It requires a bit of subjectivity, creativity, ambition, and imagination.

The same goes for heritage preservation, which seems to be determined more by age than by architectural, cultural, or historical merit. And which is far too stiflingly insistent in preservation, yet still far too easy to subvert through token facadism.

[DrNest]

^Very well put. I concur.

[waterloowarrior]

Originally Posted by MonkeyRonin

Zoning regulations are all well and good*, the problem is the specific regulations that are at work at this location. This isn't Kensington or the Annex or a part of any of our other hundreds of square kilometres worth of low or mid-rise neighbourhoods - this is the downtown core. One filled with high-rises. And from the standpoint of ambiance and the pedestrian experience, there is an inconsequential distinction between being one of 150 m towers and one with 300 m towers.

The only valid concern is that the level of density would overwhelm the existing infrastructure - however, this is also a short-sighted one. The ~4,000 residents that would inhabit the towers as proposed would presumably be living elsewhere in the city otherwise, so from a municipal perspective, the amount of strain they'd place - and similarly, the amount of money which they'd contribute in property tax - would be the same. And it's ultimately more efficient to provide the necessary infrastructure and services within a more confined space (especially in an already-walkable, transit friendly area) than a dispersed one.


*In theory that is. In practice, Toronto's planning department seems far too rigidly concerned with height and density. Not concerned enough with things like architecture, street interaction, human scale, streetscaping, grandeur...y'know, good design. Planning isn't (or rather, shouldn't be) a science...something sternly numerical, in which all goals, guidelines, and rules are established though "studies". It requires a bit of subjectivity, creativity, ambition, and imagination.

The same goes for heritage preservation, which seems to be determined more by age than by architectural, cultural, or historical merit. And which is far too stiflingly insistent in preservation, yet still far too easy to subvert through token facadism.

The zoning application is about things like height, massing, infrastructure, heritage, amenities, parking, not design. The zoning and design (site plan) processes are separate in Ontario. Once you have that height the developer could sell and build something completely different, as long as it fit within the zoning box. This is why Ms. Keesmaat wants to move to a development permit system which combines these processes.

[dleung]

Originally Posted by MonkeyRonin

Zoning regulations are all well and good*, the problem is the specific regulations that are at work at this location. This isn't Kensington or the Annex or a part of any of our other hundreds of square kilometres worth of low or mid-rise neighbourhoods - this is the downtown core. One filled with high-rises. And from the standpoint of ambiance and the pedestrian experience, there is an inconsequential distinction between being one of 150 m towers and one with 300 m towers.

The only valid concern is that the level of density would overwhelm the existing infrastructure - however, this is also a short-sighted one. The ~4,000 residents that would inhabit the towers as proposed would presumably be living elsewhere in the city otherwise, so from a municipal perspective, the amount of strain they'd place - and similarly, the amount of money which they'd contribute in property tax - would be the same. And it's ultimately more efficient to provide the necessary infrastructure and services within a more confined space (especially in an already-walkable, transit friendly area) than a dispersed one.


*In theory that is. In practice, Toronto's planning department seems far too rigidly concerned with height and density. Not concerned enough with things like architecture, street interaction, human scale, streetscaping, grandeur...y'know, good design. Planning isn't (or rather, shouldn't be) a science...something sternly numerical, in which all goals, guidelines, and rules are established though "studies". It requires a bit of subjectivity, creativity, ambition, and imagination.

The same goes for heritage preservation, which seems to be determined more by age than by architectural, cultural, or historical merit. And which is far too stiflingly insistent in preservation, yet still far too easy to subvert through token facadism.

Great post. Seconded

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally Posted by MonkeyRonin

Zoning regulations are all well and good*, the problem is the specific regulations that are at work at this location. This isn't Kensington or the Annex or a part of any of our other hundreds of square kilometres worth of low or mid-rise neighbourhoods - this is the downtown core. One filled with high-rises. And from the standpoint of ambiance and the pedestrian experience, there is an inconsequential distinction between being one of 150 m towers and one with 300 m towers.

The only valid concern is that the level of density would overwhelm the existing infrastructure - however, this is also a short-sighted one. The ~4,000 residents that would inhabit the towers as proposed would presumably be living elsewhere in the city otherwise, so from a municipal perspective, the amount of strain they'd place - and similarly, the amount of money which they'd contribute in property tax - would be the same. And it's ultimately more efficient to provide the necessary infrastructure and services within a more confined space (especially in an already-walkable, transit friendly area) than a dispersed one.


*In theory that is. In practice, Toronto's planning department seems far too rigidly concerned with height and density. Not concerned enough with things like architecture, street interaction, human scale, streetscaping, grandeur...y'know, good design. Planning isn't (or rather, shouldn't be) a science...something sternly numerical, in which all goals, guidelines, and rules are established though "studies". It requires a bit of subjectivity, creativity, ambition, and imagination.

The same goes for heritage preservation, which seems to be determined more by age than by architectural, cultural, or historical merit. And which is far too stiflingly insistent in preservation, yet still far too easy to subvert through token facadism.

On what basis have you determined the effect of 150 metres and 300 metres to be inconsequential? For example, shadowing doesn't effect ambiance? Also, there actually is an optimal level to density in which exceeding it actually cause infrastructure costs to rise significantly. One reason for zoning. People living and working in the same area is an ideology I fully support however, in practice, it rarely presents itself to the majority.

Part of planning is providing good design in the way of streetscaping, human scale and everything else you mentioned on both an individual project perspective and from a larger neighbourhood scale. Retail wouldn't line 90% of the developments if left to developers. What is not part of their agenda is architecure which the Gehry projects provides in spades but, little else

[saffronleaf]

hogtown still has that small town mentality.

[caltrane74]

1 Yorkville, placed in a future Yorkville Skyline photo



From urbantoronto

1 Yorkville is the dark shaded tower
The Tower to the left is One Bloor (under construction)
The Tall Tower to the right is Holt Renfrew Tower (proposed)
The tower on the far right is the Four Seasons Tower (205 meteres - built 2012)

[WhipperSnapper]

A small town mentality would either reject it outright and sent Gehry packing or hand Mirvish a sledgehammer without even a financial plan drawn up. A big city creates a diverse panel of knowledgeable people to come up with the best possible plan for the site. It's a more level approach to city building than one of a NIMBY or one that is star struck.

[caltrane74]

Wasn't the projected rejected earlier tonight?

Mirvish Gehry Rejected by Toronto City Council

[uzi]

this means that these towers will not go up and something much uglier than this will go up and f**k the city council, f**k those a**holes. fire all of them hire new people. they got no brains. fa*****.

[Chadillaccc]

What was the point of the "fa*****." part? But yeah, you're probably right.

[Innsertnamehere]

The Holt tower is very much in the wrong spot there.. I wonder if it is hinting at its newly redesigned form?

[caltrane74]

OK here is some context for the refusal of Gehry-King West from the Toronto Star

A city working group is looking for “a way to say yes” to the controversial David Mirvish-Frank Gehry skyrise proposal on King St. W.
“We’re moving a report to refuse the building as it’s currently configured,” said Adam Vaughan, councillor for the ward that would become home to the proposed towers designed by renowned architect Frank Gehry, in place of four heritage buildings owned by David Mirvish.
“We endorse the content of the building; we’re having trouble with the dimensions. We’ll be working with the applicant and some prominent Torontonians from the arts, architecture, planning and local community to facilitate, hopefully, a consensus,” Vaughan said, adding it was a way to avoid a showdown at the Ontario Municipal Board.


Vaughan's motion to give official sanction to the working group, which was already at work, passed 36-3 on Wednesday. While the staff report is simply rejecting the proposal, Vaughan says, the working group “is refusing it, but creating a process to solve the problem.”

Whole Storey

http://www.thestar.com/news/city_hall/20..._trying_to_tweak_mirvishgehry_plans.html

[Beedok]

Originally Posted by uzi

this means that these towers will not go up and something much uglier than this will go up.

They would be hard pressed to manage that. These towers are an overly busy mess that should be shipped off to New York where those sorts of things belong. The middle tower could work in triplicate, or building only one of the other two, but put together: Yeck!

[mistercorporate]

These towers aren't cancelled, city council is just requesting an all-stakeholders committee of 14 people to negotiate this before it goes to the OMB where judging by previous decisions it will most likely be approved. City council really wants to make this project work though they're being real d*cks wrt height.

[The_Architect]

Originally Posted by Beedok

That or cities in the developping world are exploding in size and money and looking to show off their new found might, while cities in Europe have begun to see skyscrapers as a passing fad.

.


.


.


.

If you could see this city approving and building any of these then we see this city very, very differently.

So far the only skyscraper in this recent boom that would even get a second glance outside of Toronto is the L Tower, and even that was significantly cheapened from its original design.

[Beedok]

Originally Posted by The_Architect

If you could see this city approving and building any of these then we see this city very, very differently.

So far the only skyscraper in this recent boom that would even get a second glance outside of Toronto is the L Tower, and even that was significantly cheapened from its original design.

Moscow: 15,788,000 (and flush with new oil money)
Paris: 10,869,000 (and pretty thoroughly built out, now they're needing to build up)
London: 9,576,000 (see Paris, and add more money)
Toronto: 6,184,000 (least dense city on this list, also 90% that number includes at least Hamilton which really shouldn't be counted for these purposes)

So you expect Toronto to compete with cities 2-3 times it's size, which have more money and more need for highrises and are national capitals? Toronto is not declining, the rest of the world is just rising and that's a good thing.

[niwell]

Originally Posted by The_Architect

If you could see this city approving and building any of these then we see this city very, very differently.

So far the only skyscraper in this recent boom that would even get a second glance outside of Toronto is the L Tower, and even that was significantly cheapened from its original design.

If it were the right location and the economics worked, just about any of those towers could be built.

[niwell]

Originally Posted by MonkeyRonin

*In theory that is. In practice, Toronto's planning department seems far too rigidly concerned with height and density. Not concerned enough with things like architecture, street interaction, human scale, streetscaping, grandeur...y'know, good design. Planning isn't (or rather, shouldn't be) a science...something sternly numerical, in which all goals, guidelines, and rules are established though "studies". It requires a bit of subjectivity, creativity, ambition, and imagination.

This is a nice thought, and one that many espouse coming out of planning school, but when applied in the real world is fraught with problems. Current planning in no way is a strictly numerical exercise, and there is a huge amount of give and take in bringing any major development to fruition. But in the context of our legal system you do need a rigid policy framework with robust public consultation to back things up - you can't just make things up on the spot because of what feels best. We have torn down huge amounts of our cities this way. FWIW "good design" is hugely subjective and has a tendency to change from time to time.

If the issue is zoning in the area - there are ways for this to change. Yes, it can be a long and drawn out process, but kowtowing to starchitects because OMG GEHRY isn't the way to go.

Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper

A small town mentality would either reject it outright and sent Gehry packing or hand Mirvish a sledgehammer without even a financial plan drawn up. A big city creates a diverse panel of knowledgeable people to come up with the best possible plan for the site. It's a more level approach to city building than one of a NIMBY or one that is star struck.

Yep, being small town would be throwing everything out the window to accept this proposal. And not caring about the precedent it sets or what will actually end up being built.

[caltrane74]

Originally Posted by Beedok

Moscow: 15,788,000 (and flush with new oil money)
Paris: 10,869,000 (and pretty thoroughly built out, now they're needing to build up)
London: 9,576,000 (see Paris, and add more money)
Toronto: 6,184,000 (least dense city on this list, also 90% that number includes at least Hamilton which really shouldn't be counted for these purposes)

So you expect Toronto to compete with cities 2-3 times it's size, which have more money and more need for highrises and are national capitals? Toronto is not declining, the rest of the world is just rising and that's a good thing.

GTA is 6.2 million without Hamilton. with Hamilton it goes over 7 million.