Future Canadian Skylines

[Ramako]

Originally Posted by Chadillaccc

Uhm, theatre block is approved?

No. The image is from a recently held community consultation meeting for Theatre Block. This image was intended to show the context.

[Dylan Leblanc]

Those three towers would certainly cast a big shadow across the blocks immediately to the north of them.

But that's the price you pay for living in the city baby! :babyeat:

[Chadillaccc]

INH made it seem like only approved, UC, and built were in the diagram, that's why I asked.

[MonkeyRonin]

Render by Elliot on SCC, as seen in Spacing Magazine.

Originally Posted by elliot

As posted in the Toronto section, a before (2004) and after (future) rendering as seen in the December (hard copy) issue of SpacingToronto.

Many large projects missing (simply because they would be lost in the clutter) or out of view from this angle.

Date of the future render? Hard to say. A large portion of this is built or under construction, with the exception of the just proposed Mirvish/Gehry (3 towers- I included just one for fun) and Oxford (4 towers - I included just one).

Click on the LARGE RENDER links for a much better look.

2004 view



LARGE RENDER


Future View




LARGE RENDER

[Andrewjm3D]

Originally Posted by Chadillaccc

Uhm, theatre block is approved?

Nope.

[AmericanGuy]

[caltrane74]

If 3D's rendering is right, Toronto is developing two distinct and seperate downtown cores.

[Andrewjm3D]

Originally Posted by AmericanGuy

This render is so old now, it's missing many proposals not to mention a ton of u/c buildings you would see from this angle.

Currently U/C that never made that render.

[Gresto]

Originally Posted by Andrewjm3D

This render is so old now, it's missing many proposals not to mention a ton of u/c buildings you would see from this angle.

I was also going to point out that the render is several years old and passé, but you beat me to it.
Two points, though. The image has Cityplace Signature, for which we have yet to see any concrete plans, and the old Bazis 1 Bloor, which was to be taller than the one that has just started ascending in the pit.
Other than those provisos, as you mentioned, there are oodles of missing highrises that have been brought forward in the years since.

[Klazu]

Just wow. Toronto is experiencing such a change from 2004. It's all good and I am happy for it, but I wish there would less of those bulky/cheapo glass boxes that are now dominating all of the Waterfront area. Much more architectural imagination would be much appreciated for Toronto.

[isaidso]

Originally Posted by Klazu

Just wow. Toronto is experiencing such a change from 2004. It's all good and I am happy for it, but I wish there would less of those bulky/cheapo glass boxes that are now dominating all of the Waterfront area. Much more architectural imagination would be much appreciated for Toronto.

That area you speak of is called City Place and is widely criticized by Torontonians. Concord, the developer, did get better over time but it's still an extremely homogenous monotonous part of town. Southcore, directly south of the CBD, is better quality but too much of the same thing as well. At least Southcore is residential, office, retail, and cultural which saves it.

Both are in desperate need of some architectural variety in style and materials used, but it's likely too late for both of these areas. They are largely built out so we'll just have to live with it for the next 100 years.

[Maldive]

Hey AmericanGuy, where did you steal that from? ;-)

Also old/out of date and missing tons (no Mirvish, Oxford, Cadillac mega-projects and others), but includes proper 1 Bloor East, 1 York, 100 Adelaide, Delta etc.

[Klazu]

Originally Posted by isaidso

That area you speak of is called City Place and is widely criticized by Torontonians. Concord, the developer, did get better over time but it's still an extremely homogenous monotonous part of town.

So now Concord has "ruined" two famous views of two Canadian cities. First Yaletown in Vancouver was filled with boring clone towers and now the same was done to the City Place area in Toronto.

Other cities should take note and not give Concord any prominent locations in their cities to be developed completely by this one company.

That being said, I am not saying Yaletown is ruined per se, but it could be much more interesting area if there would be more difference between the buildings in there.

[Andrewjm3D]

Originally Posted by Klazu

So now Concord has "ruined" two famous views of two Canadian cities. First Yaletown in Vancouver was filled with boring clone towers and now the same was done to the City Place area in Toronto.

Other cities should take note and not give Concord any prominent locations in their cities to be developed completely by this one company.

That being said, I am not saying Yaletown is ruined per se, but it could be much more interesting area if there would be more difference between the buildings in there.

I wouldn't go as far as to say they ruined two skylines. Only they added very little in the way of variety or innovation. Other cities should take not that it's not in their best interest to hand over a large plot of land to any one developer.

[Nouvellecosse]

The lake view of Toronto was enhanced by Cityplace, not ruined. Monotonous, low-cost buildings may not look that great up close, but from a distance, they're fine and blend in with the symphony of structures that constitute the horizon.

Vancouver unfortunately was a lot more affected since many of the Yaletown buildings are nearly as tall as those in the CBD, and are much more overpowering as a result.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

The lake view of Toronto was enhanced by Cityplace, not ruined. Monotonous, low-cost buildings may not look that great up close, but from a distance, they're fine and blend in with the symphony of structures that constitute the horizon.

I find that most of these plain blue glass buildings have added very little interest to Toronto's skyline, and they have caused the average level of diversity to decline. They are very similar in a lot of ways to the ubiquitous concrete slab towers built circa 1970. Buildings like the Royal York are much nicer looking but they are not as visible now. Even Toronto's big bank towers, some of which are excellent, have been watered down visually by lower quality buildings like 1 King West or the ugly Trump tower.

Skyline aside, Toronto's waterfront area has always suffered from a lack of pedestrian-friendliness and the new buildings haven't helped much. Even before this round of construction, the hideous Harbour Square complex just about ruined the area. Spadina could have been tied in with the waterfront more but instead it was built up in an over-scaled, sterile way: http://goo.gl/maps/HDBcs

I think there's a pretty serious problem with how real estate development works in larger cities. It's designed to satisfy the financial requirements of investors but rarely results in the creation of good urban environments. Toronto is the worst case in Canada since it gets developments on the largest scale.

[Beedok]

Originally Posted by someone123

Even Toronto's big bank towers, some of which are excellent, have been watered down visually by lower quality buildings like 1 King West or the ugly Trump tower.

1 King West is way better than any of the big bank towers.

[MonkeyRonin]

Originally Posted by someone123

I find that most of these plain blue glass buildings have added very little interest to Toronto's skyline, and they have caused the average level of diversity to decline.

Is diversity the most important metric in a skyline? I suppose thats a matter of preference, but I'd place form, height, and density above that - and even then, diversity is only good until a certain point (unless this is the ideal).

Besides, aside from the waterfront area, its hard to argue that this was more diverse than this.

I think there's a pretty serious problem with how real estate development works in larger cities. It's designed to satisfy the financial requirements of investors but rarely results in the creation of good urban environments. Toronto is the worst case in Canada since it gets developments on the largest scale.

Wait, so you're saying the larger the city the lower the quality and urbanity of the development? Seriously?

[someone123]

Originally Posted by MonkeyRonin

Wait, so you're saying the larger the city the lower the quality and urbanity of the development? Seriously?

No. I am saying that the scale of development projects tends to follow the scale of investment, and that may be unrelated from what is best or more interesting for a city. China is an extreme case where you might find a square kilometre covered in identical, boring towers; these are efficient to build, but make for an impoverished environment. CityPlace is pretty far in that direction. The nicest projects are "boutique"-style developments with carefully thought-out designs that are novel but sympathetic to their surroundings.

[taal]

Originally Posted by someone123

No. I am saying that the scale of development projects tends to follow the scale of investment, and that may be unrelated from what is best or more interesting for a city. China is an extreme case where you might find a square kilometre covered in identical, boring towers; these are efficient to build, but make for an impoverished environment. CityPlace is pretty far in that direction. The nicest projects are "boutique"-style developments with carefully thought-out designs that are novel but sympathetic to their surroundings.

I agree ... that's why I'm liking what I see in the East Bay front / West donlands ... looks like things are being done right there, with great scale !