Urban Toronto - Powered by vBulletin
Project Essentials / dataBase detailed project information, floor plans, renderings
Projects & Construction Thread  I  Real Estate Thread
Clear Spirit
Cherry & Mill, Toronto
Developer: Cityscape, Dundee Realty
Page 5 of 174 FirstFirst ... 345671555105 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 75 of 2603

Thread: Pure/Clear Spirit, Gooderham Condos (Distillery, Cityscape, 32 + 40 + 35s, aA)

  1. #61
    alklay Guest

    Default

    I am not quite sure why the argument for a building that is more in keeping with its surrounding, means that we are treating the area as 'sacred'.

    The area should be treated like every area of the city: planning and zoning that is in keeping with the nature and mass of the surroundings.

    Whether a 50 story building is improper in an area of low level historical buildings is certainly debatable, on a purely planning level. What this debate is not, is a false choice or argument between this proposal and 'sacredness' and 'nimbyism'.


  2. #62
    andreapalladio Guest

    Default

    By that token, there would be no tall buildings in Yorkville, because they are not in keeping with the nature and mass their surroundings.

    Nor would two buildings that have been held up on this forum in recent days as examples of what Toronto should be doing - St. Mary Axe and the London Council building - have been built if they were required to be in context with their surroundings, for they most assuredly are not in keeping with the nature and mass of their surroundings.

  3. #63
    Ed007Toronto Guest

    Default

    Done right there isn't any reason why old and new, short and tall can't co-exist. How about London?


  4. #64
    building babel Guest

    Default

    ... especially since, in the Distillery District, they're different phases of the same development and the one will pump money into the other.

  5. #65
    jayomatic Guest

    Default

    That picture is a great example of what i'd prefer. Those buildings are perhaps 20 stories. I think it would just be better to provide a transition of heights instead of placing a 50 story tower right next to a 2 story structure.

  6. #66
    alklay Guest

    Default

    "By that token, there would be no tall buildings in Yorkville, because they are not in keeping with the nature and mass their surroundings.

    Nor would two buildings that have been held up on this forum in recent days as examples of what Toronto should be doing - St. Mary Axe and the London Council building - have been built if they were required to be in context with their surroundings, for they most assuredly are not in keeping with the nature and mass of their surroundings."


    There is little doubt that the tall buildings in Yorkville are changing the very nature of the 'village' that once was. If you want to change the nature of the Distillery, tall buildings will certainly do it.

    I am not sure what the St. Mary Axe building is or what the London Council building is but if you mean London City Hall, I am not sure what context it is violating. London City Hall appears to be on the waterfront in an area largely devoid of other buildings.

  7. #67
    building babel Guest

    Default

    St Mary Axe is Swiss Re.

    Yorkville wasn't a "village" when I lived on Scollard in 1977 - it was well on the way to being a crass commercial district even then. Perhaps the last days of the hippy era in the late 1960's was the last gasp of the "village" of Yorkville.

  8. #68
    TdotTrickyRicky Guest

    Default

    I think the debate is complicated by the fact that the distillery district is not really a district at all. It is a commercial property with an immediate context consisting primarily of wasteland, car dealerships and highway on ramps. What then is the appropriate "contextual" built form?

  9. #69
    Ed007Toronto Guest

    Default

    Again London. I would love to see this.


  10. #70
    3Dementia Guest

    Default

    Other than the inconvenience of having to digitally remove the towers from wide shots of period films, I don't see this as a problem at all.

    This site sat neglected, bought and sold and bought again for decades. Cityscape finally pumped some life into it and they did it quickly. I for one think they've earned the right to earn a buck.

    Johnny come lately debates about world heritage, historical context et al aside... the simple fact is the site was rotting.

    A new neighbourhood is birthing next door (W. Donlands) and the so called district now hosts great theatre, good beer and lots of fake cobblestones.

    Let's let it evolve and create a crazy new/historical collision that links the next two brand (grand?) new neighbourhoods in the city (E. Bayfront being the other).

    P.S. it was a booze factory

  11. #71
    SD2 Guest

    Default

    This site sat neglected, bought and sold and bought again for decades. Cityscape finally pumped some life into it and they did it quickly. I for one think they've earned the right to earn a buck.

    Johnny come lately debates about world heritage, historical context et al aside... the simple fact is the site was rotting.
    Decades? It was in operation till 1990. Since then it's been the top location for film shoots. It wasn't just sitting there rotting.

    I have no problem with Cityscape trying to make money. That doesn't mean they should be allowed to build whatever they want there. The city routinely will turn down applications for development for a variety of reasons. We don't have many continuous historical districts...why drop huge point towers in this one? Surely the city could've asked for more restrained development and offered the developer some perks.

  12. #72
    Brighter Hell Guest

    Default

    Done right there isn't any reason why old and new, short and tall can't co-exist. How about London?
    London has all kinds of areas where high rises aren't permitted.

  13. #73
    3Dementia Guest

    Default

    Apologies SD... "after 17 years..." OK?

    I'm older and thus a bit more impatient.

  14. #74
    building babel Guest

    Default

    I find youth generally more impatient. With age, one tends to want to see things done properly or not at all, rather than done quickly for the sake of seeing it finished.

  15. #75
    SD2 Guest

    Default

    Apologies SD... "after 17 years..." OK?

    I'm older and thus a bit more impatient.
    Well, it opened in 2003 so that's 13 years. In the meantime it was used as a location for movie shoots, one of the top locations on the continent...I don't think you can really say it's just been sitting there rotting.

Page 5 of 174 FirstFirst ... 345671555105 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •