Canadian City Proposals

[TorontoDrew]

Originally Posted by GeneralLeeTPHLS

I think the design lost it's lustre to me. It's dificult to tell how the materials wil be on this project, but it won't change my opinion. I just don't find jumbled, stacked boxes very attractive for a tower design.

I kind of agree with you, but I think it will probably turn out to be a showstopper. Ghery is all about the use of materials so while it's tough to tell how it will look with current renders and models I'm confident the finished product will be amazing.

[WhipperSnapper]

I don't know about that. Gehry has Kobe steak tastes and he doesn't have the greatest track record when given a budget below Kobe steak. This development is anywhere between Rib Eye and hamburger. Adamson Associates is the architect of record (according to urbantoronto) which has me hopeful it'll be rib eye over hamburger

[Biff]

Great, now I'm hungry.

[TorontoDrew]

Originally Posted by Biff

Great, now I'm hungry.

LOL, I had a great Rib Eye yesterday at The House on Parliament. Now I want it again, thanks Whipper.

[suburbanite]

Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper

I don't know about that. Gehry has Kobe steak tastes and he doesn't have the greatest track record when given a budget below Kobe steak. This development is anywhere between Rib Eye and hamburger. Adamson Associates is the architect of record (according to urbantoronto) which has me hopeful it'll be rib eye over hamburger

Exactly. Imagine what 8 Spruce Street in New York looks like with half the budget. If your designs are heavily reliant on the materials, then the materials better be top-notch. I don't know if the sales prices here are going to be enough to accommodate a true Gehry, and so we're counting on the developer respecting the architect enough to shave significant margin off of their project, and there is little precedent for that in Toronto.

[yaletown_fella]

If only it were elegant like 8 Spruce Street. There are a lot of supertalls in NYC that I dont care for, but I think 8 Spruce Street is one of NYC and Gehrys finest.

The stacked boxes in their current form look grubby and heavy handed. Maybe a Wanda Vista on a slightly tighter budget.

[theman23]

Originally Posted by Rico Rommheim

Count this as one of the rare times I disagree with Martinmtl.

These towers are awful, I'd be embarrassed to see them in Montreal.

Also, having visited TO a few times this past year, I think it's safe to say that Toronto has got enough skysrapers. None of the new ones are adding anything new at this point, just noise. This is my own opinion of course, but I think Toronto's skyscraper boom should come to an end, thousands of towers built and none of them measure up to the 1960's and 70's bank towers of King and Bay or the pre-war skyscrapers along Bay. I would like to see Toronto build more midrises and rowhouses.

Again, this is purely anecdotal, but in my experience, everyone from out of town is impressed with Toronto's sea of skyscrapers, but I have yet to meet someone who finds it beautiful or attractive.

Don’t really understand this view point. Toronto needing to build more mid rises and high density low rises (which I would agree with) doesn’t preclude the construction of high rises.

[Nouvellecosse]

His main argument seems to be that he doesn't like many of the highrises being built and doesn't think most of them are adding to the city. Not liking something and believing there to be a better alternative would certainly be an argument for not wanting more of it.

[WhipperSnapper]

plenty of mid rises going up although highrises do greatly outnumber mid rises. Townhomes grow like weeds in the GTA; usually arranged in large development blocks above underground parking than street facing infill.

I like rowhouses but, not as nearly as much as the nostalgia on SSP; completely different urban built form but, no different than post war suburbia perception in which every house is exactly the same inside and out. The pre war British designs in Toronto are tinder boxes.

[Rico Rommheim]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

His main argument seems to be that he doesn't like many of the highrises being built and doesn't think most of them are adding to the city. Not liking something and believing there to be a better alternative would certainly be an argument for not wanting more of it.

Pretty much. There's also a bias in here on my part. I don't like skyscrapers for the sake of skyscrapers. And I don't like vanity skyscrapers either, which tend to be lazy and lacking any innovation, like that Gehry monstrosity.

Maybe it's also because I'm getting old and that my teenaged obsession with anything tall has largely gone away.

For me, great skylines are more than a messy blob of generic towers, it's a certain shape and a certain aesthetic that I crave. Thank goodness Toronto has got the CN tower, a tower I personally find ugly by itself, but striking and beautiful when seen as part of the larger TO skyline.

[WhipperSnapper]

I can like or dislike a skyline aesthetics that has peaks and valleys as much as a flat table top. I am a firm believer in cones for maximizing densities while providing the greatest livability within a context that includes very tall buildings. I agree with you that the average architectural quality is important among the most prominent tower in a skyline and is something lost on the token Island view in Toronto.

Tower like CN contribute by providing points of interest. I prefer them to stand on their own. I rather not see supertalls in close proximity to the CN Tower. However, the Calgary tower still accomplishes the task.

Skyscrapers for the sake of skyscrapers is an odd sentiment given the required profitability for real estate development in Canada. Vanity ended when preleasing surplanted speculation after everyone went bankrupt including the world's largest speculator, Olympic and York, that nearly took down Bay Street. I have my doubts the largest of pension funds prefer a billion dollar sky-scraper over something more moderate in height and cost.

[Rico Rommheim]

Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper

Tower like CN contribute by providing points of interest. I prefer them to stand on their own.
I rather not see supertalls in close proximity to the CN Tower. However, the Calgary tower still accomplishes the task.

Absolutely. Let's keep supertalls as far away as the CN as possible.


I've said it before and I'll sound like a broken record again, but the Toronto skyline of 1969 is perhaps my favourite iteration of any skyline in Canada.
It's gritty and tall and well lived in. It doesn't look cheap of made out of plastic.
It looks like a midwestern industrial city merging with an east coast financial centre.
I love it.


https://torontoguardian.com/wp-content/u...terfront-looking-north-to-Royal-York.jpg

https://media.blogto.com/articles/201711...=resize_then_crop&height=1365&quality=70


https://media.blogto.com/uploads/2017/06...cmd=resize&quality=70&w=1400&height=2500


https://torontolife.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/1967-Toronto.jpg

It's a skyline Stanley Kubrick would design.

[J.OT13]

Across the street from the mid-century Elmvale Shopping Centre. Three new towers to be added around two 60s-70s era apartment blocks. The new towers are replacing some surface parking lots.

Google maps:

https://www.google.com/maps/@45.3984908,-75.6216893,327m/data=!3m1!1e3

Originally Posted by rocketphish

Starlight Development is proposing the development of four (4) new buildings at 1971 & 1975 St. Laurent Boulevard, including three (3) 17-storey multi-unit residential buildings on the north and west side of the site with frontage along St. Laurent Boulevard and Russel Road. The fourth building is proposed as a 4-storey above-grade parking garage to service the entire property and is located internally on the site and accessed via the existing surface parking area.

Building A consists of 165 residential units while Buildings B & C propose 168 residential units each; no commercial space is provided within the proposed site redevelopment program. The proposed development contributes to a healthy mix of unit types, including 155 two-bedroom units and 27 three-bedroom units, to ensure options for various tenants and families in the area.

The proposed 4-storey, above-grade parking garage is located on the interior of the site and adjacent to the existing high-rise buildings and contains 346 parking spaces.

The proposed development represents Phase 2 in the overall development plan of the property with Phase 1 consisting of the two existing 18-storey residential buildings constructed in the mid-1970s. In total, at full build-out, the site is proposed to consist of over 1,000 residential rental units.

Architect: Petroff Partnership Architects


Development application:
https://devapps.ottawa.ca/en/applications/D07-12-22-0044/details

Location:




Siteplan:




Renderings:

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally Posted by Rico Rommheim

Absolutely. Let's keep supertalls as far away as the CN as possible.


I've said it before and I'll sound like a broken record again, but the Toronto skyline of 1969 is perhaps my favourite iteration of any skyline in Canada.
It's gritty and tall and well lived in. It doesn't look cheap of made out of plastic.
It looks like a midwestern industrial city merging with an east coast financial centre.
I love it.


https://torontoguardian.com/wp-content/u...terfront-looking-north-to-Royal-York.jpg



It's a skyline Stanley Kubrick would design.

To me, it's filthy; the grand prewar details are lost under layers of soot. I don't know all that much about Stanley Kubrick. I think he may also enjoy the plastic futurism of Moskva City and especially for the reason it exists.

[Rico Rommheim]

Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper

To me, it's filthy; the grand prewar details are lost under layers of soot. I don't know all that much about Stanley Kubrick. I think he may also enjoy the plastic futurism of Moskva City and especially for the reason it exists.

Fair enough, the soot though is purely cosmetics, it's not set in stone, despite its appearance.

To me, you've got Toronto's classy selection of pre-war skyscrapers, perhaps the biggest such selection of such buildings in the world outside of the USA (although Shanghai, a couple Brazilian cities and also Buenos Aires are probably on par), and the 1960's/70's Bank towers. Those are substantial buildings with some heft. Most or all of them them designed carefully by legit architects with a vision and style. It's impressive. The current iteration of the TO skyline is frantic, 🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵, confusing and soulless. Too much of everything, too much of anything, too much of nothing.

Again though all purely a matter of personal taste.

Edit: I've re-read my post and I come across as really not liking the TO skyline. This isn't true though, I like it and I do gaze at it on this board. But I think visiting the city a few times in a few months and exploring the neighbourhoods and the city itself, I reckon that Toronto is a lovely city, a city with some great history, but a city that is ultimately betrayed by this swarm of ugly developement. Toronto deserves better.

I think TO's skyscraper boom occurred in the wrong time, had TO boomed at a time when masonry buildings were still in vogue, or when architecture in Canada was actually a respected craft, it would have turned out better. Instead, Toronto's skyscraper boom coincided at a time when architectural standards are really bad.

[thewave46]

Originally Posted by Rico Rommheim

Absolutely. Let's keep supertalls as far away as the CN as possible.

I've said it before and I'll sound like a broken record again, but the Toronto skyline of 1969 is perhaps my favourite iteration of any skyline in Canada.
It's gritty and tall and well lived in. It doesn't look cheap of made out of plastic.
It looks like a midwestern industrial city merging with an east coast financial centre.
I love it.

It's a skyline Stanley Kubrick would design.

Montreal of the 1960s blows Toronto of the '60s out of the water. The solid, classic pre-war Sunlife building contrasted the ambitious modernity of Place Ville-Marie and Tour de la Bourse. There's an iconic picture on here of Westmount Square taken in the '60s with an MG and Chevrolet Impala coupe parked alongside. It's just peak '60s vibe, a scene straight from Mad Men.

With the TD Centre of the late '60s, Toronto was starting its gangly teen years. It had its moments of ambition with Toronto City Hall of the era, but Commerce Court North and the Royal York are dwarfed by the monoliths. The scale is all wrong. It's not until the 1980s that Toronto was recognizably filled out into city we know today. The CN Tower, First Canadian Place, TD Canada Trust Tower, and Scotia Plaza helped immensely.

Montreal has better balance.

[biguc]

Agreed on Montreal's skyline. Even in the 2000s, before it started its current growth spurt, it still had a great skyline. It hasn't improved since.

I agree with Rico's points though, including not being as excited by tall buildings as I used to be. I used to look at them as an indication of the city but they often don't make cities better, so...

But in as much as we're talking about skylines, most big NA skylines have gotten cluttered over the last decade. Pick any city that was a standout in 2005 and you'll likely find its iconic buildings swallowed in a forest of grey anonymity. Toronto is the most obvious case in point, but this is true of Vancouver too, and, increasingly, Montreal. Chicago's skyline peaked with the Trump tower. Midtown Manhattan was better when ESB, Chrysler, and Citigroup stood above the crowd; not these anonymous billionaire towers.

Outside of NA, one of my favourite all-time skylines was 2000s Hong Kong. The IFC tower had just come up and pushed new heights, but it stood beside a strong cast of standout towers, including one of the best ever--Foster's Bank of China. It's all still there, I suppose, but it suffers from the encroachment of the huge, beige tower complexes that now dominate that city. Individually, Toronto's residential towers are better looking, but the effect on the skyline is similar.

The skylines that have gotten better since those days demonstrate that the best skylines maintain clearly recognizable stars. Shanghai, London, Warsaw--each displays some terrible architecture, but each skyline also gives its stars the space we need to recognize them.

MARK recently posted this picture on the skylines from far away thread, in City Discussions:

Originally Posted by M II A II R II K

El campo y la ciudad by Rubén Ramos Blanco, on Flickr

I used to hate skylines like this, where you could almost see the bare earth between the tallest buildings. Now, given the choice between this and burying the best skyscrapers in a thicket, I'll take the isolated towers.

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally Posted by Rico Rommheim

I think TO's skyscraper boom occurred in the wrong time, had TO boomed at a time when masonry buildings were still in vogue, or when architecture in Canada was actually a respected craft, it would have turned out better. Instead, Toronto's skyscraper boom coincided at a time when architectural standards are really bad.

The masonry office towers in Toronto are a mixed bag. Most at the peak of the 1920s real estate bubble were quickly thrown up by Americans priced out of New York. Doubtful even the finest crafted of these masonry buildings were micro managed to the smallest details as much as Mies' simple black box TD Centre.

[WhipperSnapper]

Chicago's standards have been pretty darn low since 2000. 10 years ago, there was no contest who built more pleasing between Chicago and Toronto. Now, it's more blurred.

[TorontoDrew]

Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper

To me, it's filthy; the grand prewar details are lost under layers of soot. I don't know all that much about Stanley Kubrick. I think he may also enjoy the plastic futurism of Moskva City and especially for the reason it exists.

100% Agree! I love the TD Towers but when they stood alone like that it had a very unitarian feel of big brother watching over the city.