Future Canadian Skylines

[isaidso]

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.

Agree 100% I hate Concord with a passion and just want them to find some other business. I hate City Place and hate what they did to Vancouver. YUCK YUCK YUCK.

[isaidso]

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.

What good is a city if it's only good from a distance in a photo? Cities are for people to live and walk around. City Place is a dead zone and will be for the next 50 years minimum.

It's at street level that matters, not postcards.

[isaidso]

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. 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.

Agree. You don't feel like you're in the middle of a big city when in City Place. You feel like you're in some boring sterile suburb with no character, charm, or vibrancy. It's shocking how you can go from an awesome metropolis to mundane banality just by walking 2 minutes to the south west.

[WhipperSnapper]

Cityplace is new and far from complete build out.. It will take time for the street level to reach a critical mass of shops and for the residents to develop a sense of community. It will never become a destination nor was it meant to be. I don't see that as a failure or the fact that it doesn't have a century of development and intensification. It's unfair to judge it that way. The same applies to the award winning residential neighbourhood along The Esplanade.

Maybe there are too many boutique shops and not enough chain stores among the live/work units that have gone commercial to feel like a big city.

[Andrewjm3D]

Those points are why many consider cityplace a failure. Watch the Canary District grow and people will see how to build a new residential urban area, not just a vertical suburb in the city.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by isaidso

What good is a city if it's only good from a distance in a photo? Cities are for people to live and walk around. City Place is a dead zone and will be for the next 50 years minimum.

It's at street level that matters, not postcards.

The person I was quoting implied that the skyline has been ruined by it and I disagreed. What that has to do with the street level I don't know.

Although I must say I also disagree that Cityplace is a dead zone as well. When I stayed there for a week in 2010, I definitely felt it had a different vibe than the rest of Toronto, but it felt youthful, cozy, and mildly energetic. It may not have the intensity of much of downtown, but as a bedroom annex I'm not sure why it should.

[niwell]

Originally Posted by isaidso

It's at street level that matters, not postcards.

You are saying this but don't like the 2 story buildings on Bloor? And don't go into what are probably the most vibrant areas of Toronto? That's... odd. To say the least.

Cityplace isn't' that bad. A bit banal but the successive phases have gotten much better. I agree with Whippersnapper on this one. I do expect the lower donlands developments to be superior in every sense, but they are very different in ownership / development history.

[Klazu]

I must add that even though Vancouver's famous skyline (as seen over False Creek) is rather boring-looking with all the the clone towers, Yaletown still has a great streetscape, which is lively, vibrant and also pretty lush. I really like walking around the area and hanging out in there, even though the towers are not that interesting. It's the podiums that are to thank for this.

I can't say the same for Coal Harbour in Vancouver and City Place in Toronto. The last time I was in Toronto was back in 2009, so I acknowledge it may have improved since, but at least back then walking around in the area felt dead and un-inviting for pedestrians. Today the density is much higher, but I still haven't seen any photos of a vibrant and pedestrian-inviting streetscape in the area.

So to me the towers around City Place are impressive in height and density, but so boring and sterile in architecture, and they completely lack interaction with the surrounding cityscape. There is no feeling of community for the area. It's just a bedroom neighbourhood.

I am happy to be proven wrong with some great photos of the livelyhood of the area!

[logan5]

single post

[isaidso]

Originally Posted by niwell

You are saying this but don't like the 2 story buildings on Bloor? And don't go into what are probably the most vibrant areas of Toronto? That's... odd. To say the least.

Not odd at all. As I've said it in the 'Ugly Canada' thread, and will repeat it here: exchanging soul sucking modernity for an eclectic eye sore isn't a solution, imo. They're both terrible. There seems to be this bizarre view in Toronto that buildings have to look like Queen West or Kensington Market to be vibrant. Want odd? That's odd.

Vibrancy has to do with scale and design at street level (you can have a 50 floor building above it), retail, mixed use, pedestrian volumes, amenities, transit, sidewalks, how one designs the public realm, etc. You can have beautiful buildings and accomplish that... and having short historic buildings isn't a pre-requisite.

I do love the vibrancy of Yonge, but 90% of the buildings north of Dundas are a ghastly embarrassment. I'm hardly alone in my intense distaste for those buildings. Church isn't much better. I go there, but try not to focus on the buildings. Squinting helps.

Originally Posted by niwell

Cityplace isn't' that bad. A bit banal but the successive phases have gotten much better. I agree with Whippersnapper on this one. I do expect the lower donlands developments to be superior in every sense, but they are very different in ownership / development history.

City Place did get much better as it progressed, but it's a neighbourhood best left to postcards from the Islands or Porter Airlines. It feels more like Mississauga than Toronto. City Place = MAJOR FAIL.


Sometimes a comparison puts things into perspective:


Ugly



Beautiful

Courtesy of androiduk


There is no reason why modern skyscrapers can't treat the first floor as has been done above. One could even get rid of the detailing/80% of the beige brick on the 2nd and 3rd floors and have a large expanse of black glass for a good transition from street level to a modern 50 floor tower above. What matters is the treatment of those first few floors, the sidewalk, lamp posts, quality of materials, attention to detail, foliage, etc.

[Dylan Leblanc]

Calgary


http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/show...=202479&page=5

[Dylan Leblanc]

here I tweaked it a bit

[caltrane74]

Maldive has gone crazy..

the latest toronto rendering

http://www.upside-down.ca/cherry-oxford.jpg

[suburbanite]

If I had been drinking something I would have spit it all over my keyboard. That is absolutely insane, incomprehensible almost.

[skrish]

Wow, that's amazing.

[red-paladin]

That is awesome! This is Toronto with all of the U/C and proposed highrises if they are completed?

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally Posted by isaidso

Not odd at all. As I've said it in the 'Ugly Canada' thread, and will repeat it here: exchanging soul sucking modernity for an eclectic eye sore isn't a solution, imo. They're both terrible. There seems to be this bizarre view in Toronto that buildings have to look like Queen West or Kensington Market to be vibrant. Want odd? That's odd.

Vibrancy has to do with scale and design at street level (you can have a 50 floor building above it), retail, mixed use, pedestrian volumes, amenities, transit, sidewalks, how one designs the public realm, etc. You can have beautiful buildings and accomplish that... and having short historic buildings isn't a pre-requisite.

I do love the vibrancy of Yonge, but 90% of the buildings north of Dundas are a ghastly embarrassment. I'm hardly alone in my intense distaste for those buildings. Church isn't much better. I go there, but try not to focus on the buildings. Squinting helps.



City Place did get much better as it progressed, but it's a neighbourhood best left to postcards from the Islands or Porter Airlines. It feels more like Mississauga than Toronto. City Place = MAJOR FAIL.


Sometimes a comparison puts things into perspective:


Ugly



Beautiful

Courtesy of androiduk


There is no reason why modern skyscrapers can't treat the first floor as has been done above. One could even get rid of the detailing/80% of the beige brick on the 2nd and 3rd floors and have a large expanse of black glass for a good transition from street level to a modern 50 floor tower above. What matters is the treatment of those first few floors, the sidewalk, lamp posts, quality of materials, attention to detail, foliage, etc.

I'm greatly concerned by such words as "transition". The street level should reflect the tower above and, of course, heavier materials do have a grounding effect however, I really don't see any sort of adaptation of the renovation pictured above suiting the modern tower designs of today. The idea of filling in the site with a podium followed by a tower plopped on top needs to disappear as well.

Public spaces outside of the private property are at the whim of our municipal agencies. I agree developers shouldn't be strapped down in red tape to make improvements here but, I also agree in an overall street scape vision with standardization in surfaces and fixtures within the community.

Overall, Toronto does quite well in designing street walls that integrate well with the towers above. Facade materials have improved over the course of the boom. Our public space has seen improvements across the board as well although not to the speed and degree most people would have wished. Things will be quite comparable to the prime downtown neighbourhoods south of the border in a decades time as long as we continue.

[Ramako]

Originally Posted by red-paladin

That is awesome! This is Toronto with all of the U/C and proposed highrises if they are completed?

Not even close to all of them. There's still a bunch of stuff missing such as Ten York, Harbour Plaza Residences, 460 Yonge, the three Mirvish+Gehry towers, 37 Yorkville, 156 Front, 43 Gerrard West, parts of CityPlace, Chaz on Charles, Five Condos, etc.

In fact, the only projects in that rendering that won't be under construction by sometime next year are the four Oxford towers, CityPlace's Signature Tower and 50 Bloor.

[Gresto]

Originally Posted by red-paladin

That is awesome! This is Toronto with all of the U/C and proposed highrises if they are completed?

Several mega-proposals are missing: The three huge Mirvish towers, which are almost a certainty because of their cachet, 10 York, which is a certainty, and 90 Harbour (1 office, residential of 66s and 62s), which has started excavation (or will shortly) despite the residential component not being on the market yet.
If anything, I would say the Oxford twins (by the CN Tower) and the casino hotel towers to their left are less likely to be built than those missing from the picture, but someone with insider knowledge might correct that possible misapprehension.

[red-paladin]

Thanks for the corrections. That makes it even more amazing to think about.