syn
Senior Member
I totally agree.
Toronto Market Wharf | 110.33m | 33s | Context Development | a—A
- Thread starter maestro
- Start date
I totally agree.
urbandreamer
recession proof
^And build the tower portion, on a new site--maybe along St George?
ProjectEnd
Superstar
alklay
Senior Member
The tower seems to have no relationship whatsoever with the base (there are no design elements to tie the two together).
Urban Shocker
Doyenne
Thank God we've moved on from those dumpy, mid-'90s "fear of heights" condos ... shown in ganja's last post.
Wakey-wakey! Rise and shine! Welcome to 21st century Toronto, boys and girls!
Wakey-wakey! Rise and shine! Welcome to 21st century Toronto, boys and girls!
ganjavih
Senior Member
It's not a dumpy fear of heights condo. It's The Lenox, a new condo project in Harlem on the island of Manhattan. There certainly is no fear of heights in Manhattan but developers seem to appreciate context better than they do in Toronto where anything goes anywhere.
Total height aside, this sort of massing is better than towers on the podiums. Toronto's problem is its fear of shadows more than fear of heights. That's why the tower on the dinky podium design predominates. I'd rather have the shadows along with the better streetwall and the increased sense of density. It's even worse when the tower and the podium clash, like in this design.
I think the tower on the podium design, in general, is a mistake. They do not create pleasant streetscapes. They look anaemic. I don't dislike this proposal, it's not bad. But it could be a lot better.
Which development do you think would better provide that "dense urban" feel at the street level?
If 21st century Toronto is about dinky podiums, then no thanks.
Total height aside, this sort of massing is better than towers on the podiums. Toronto's problem is its fear of shadows more than fear of heights. That's why the tower on the dinky podium design predominates. I'd rather have the shadows along with the better streetwall and the increased sense of density. It's even worse when the tower and the podium clash, like in this design.
I think the tower on the podium design, in general, is a mistake. They do not create pleasant streetscapes. They look anaemic. I don't dislike this proposal, it's not bad. But it could be a lot better.
Which development do you think would better provide that "dense urban" feel at the street level?
If 21st century Toronto is about dinky podiums, then no thanks.
urbandreamer
recession proof
^You hit the (shadow) on the head! Toronto--at least "public joe average politician"--is scared of shadows, not height!
Now today was a bloody hot day, and I tried my best to stay in shadows on my long walk along Bloor West today; very challenging and frustrating experience. Bring on the shadows and the strong streetwalls! Towers on podiums are so small town (like Vancouver.)
This Market Wharf proposal merely demonstrates that Toronto has simply replaced the "tower in the park" with the "tower in the podium;" they've raised the "park" off the ground. Get rid of the "park" all together and embrace real old fashioned streetwalls! Then concentrate on getting developers to pay for real parks, gorgeous little urban parkettes/squares to be built. Say, for example, for every twenty highrises built, one gorgeous urban square (the size of two or three building lots) gets built--I'm talking about previously uninhabited space here--think LV.
Now today was a bloody hot day, and I tried my best to stay in shadows on my long walk along Bloor West today; very challenging and frustrating experience. Bring on the shadows and the strong streetwalls! Towers on podiums are so small town (like Vancouver.)
This Market Wharf proposal merely demonstrates that Toronto has simply replaced the "tower in the park" with the "tower in the podium;" they've raised the "park" off the ground. Get rid of the "park" all together and embrace real old fashioned streetwalls! Then concentrate on getting developers to pay for real parks, gorgeous little urban parkettes/squares to be built. Say, for example, for every twenty highrises built, one gorgeous urban square (the size of two or three building lots) gets built--I'm talking about previously uninhabited space here--think LV.
syn
Senior Member
You're slowly becoming Christopher Hume.
adma
Superstar
Yeah, Pug voters would definitely choose the former. Myself, I'm no hyper-advocate of the former (contextually "appropriate"; but, middlebrow snoozeola), but fundamentally either/or...
The former would actually work better as infill on Bloor or Danforth--though even its scale would get shadow-fearing NIMBYs up in arms.
Urban Shocker
Doyenne
Yes, the Pugs would surely reward that sort of thing. Let's not buy into the idea that to be world class we must ape everything New York does - after all the Lenox looks strangely like King George Square, a local, vaguely historicist, mid-'90s "fear of heights" cube.
There's no reason why a tower has to look like a podium - they're visually differentiated anyway, so run with it. Tall buildings are in context for big cities, yet the podium at Market Wharf clearly holds its own in terms of mass as it plays off of it. The tower is lighter and soars to match the height of other local towers, and the podium is solid and of red brick and matches the surrounding buildings.
Tower/podium is a more dynamic arrangement than dumpy little cubes and Toronto has moved on from the thinking of the June Rowlands/Mel Lastman era. Don't drag us back there, please!
There's no reason why a tower has to look like a podium - they're visually differentiated anyway, so run with it. Tall buildings are in context for big cities, yet the podium at Market Wharf clearly holds its own in terms of mass as it plays off of it. The tower is lighter and soars to match the height of other local towers, and the podium is solid and of red brick and matches the surrounding buildings.
Tower/podium is a more dynamic arrangement than dumpy little cubes and Toronto has moved on from the thinking of the June Rowlands/Mel Lastman era. Don't drag us back there, please!
Hipster Duck
Senior Member
Uh, I don't think ganja posted a New York condo because he thinks we should blindly emulate the Big Apple.
He could have posted a number of Toronto condos, such as those out in Freedville, or buildings like Ideal condos, Twenty Niagara, MoZo, etc. which were built to suit the context of their neighbourhood and were designed by...get this...Peter Clewes!
He could have posted a number of Toronto condos, such as those out in Freedville, or buildings like Ideal condos, Twenty Niagara, MoZo, etc. which were built to suit the context of their neighbourhood and were designed by...get this...Peter Clewes!
grey
Senior Member
Yeah, but he mentioned New York. It doesn't matter how valid his example was, he still has to endure "stop comparing Toronto to New York" digressions. It's forum policy.
urbandreamer
recession proof
I always compare Toronto to Pittsburg. A more realistic comparison, I think.
US, what towers are "nearby" the St Lawrence neighbourhood?
I bet Peter Clewes personally hates this Context proposal, but since the developers demanded a point tower, he gave them one.
US, what towers are "nearby" the St Lawrence neighbourhood?
I bet Peter Clewes personally hates this Context proposal, but since the developers demanded a point tower, he gave them one.
Urban Shocker
Doyenne
London on the Esplanade, the proposed L Tower and the building to the south of it, that condo at 25 The Esplanade, they're all nearbye this development; Freedville isn't.
ganjavih
Senior Member
Hipster Duck got the point. Replace the Lenox with Mozo... my point is still the same. The cube is better for urbanity than the point tower.
Which works better?
Point towers inevitably fail to contribute to urban fabric. There is no such thing as a vibrant point tower neighbourhood.
Which works better?
Point towers inevitably fail to contribute to urban fabric. There is no such thing as a vibrant point tower neighbourhood.