Toronto L-Tower | 204.82m | 58s | Cityzen | Daniel Libeskind

NIL OMNI said:
Adma, are the "message-board-dorks" that you claim want vertical density really disregarding the city as an accessory? (thanks for dusting off besotten, by the way). Are these concepts of verticality and city at ground level mutually exclusive? I know that in my small enclave, they work together well.
Click to expand...

I think it's more the "tall beefy skyline" as a be-all and end-all to urbanity. (Besides, it sounds a little too Tom Of Finland for its own good. I'd like a little urban cunnilingus allowance here...)
 
dcc008 said:
It's plain and simple, the city wants a tall beefy skyline (vertical density), and they're getting it.

I think the definition of what a vista actually is has in relation to the debate been lost. Are we speaking on behalf of the architectural vista of a building's exterior? Or the vista outwards from the building?

In the case of 25 The Esplanade, it's west-elevation vista was preserved with the initial building layout skewed in relation to the street. From any other angle, this building is awful, huge strain to the waterfront "vista", completing the physical barrier between city and waterfront to go along with the Gardiner S*it-spressway.

That then, answers the question. Above is my opinion of a vista, someone else may beg to differ.

Conclusion? Vistas are subjective, ranging in scenario from location to location and stylistic/architectural taste from person to person.

Now if that's how I understand the discussion, meanwhile this is about something completely different, this could be a totally subjective answer and we're spinning in circles here folks!
Click to expand...

A vista in this context refers to a building (or other type of landmark) which has been strategically constructed as a focal point. The architecture tends to be something memorable because the architect and client realize the site's significance and its objective place in the geography of the city. Such city-building gestures certainly do not preclude a dense skyline. That's an agreeable goal, but we can't get into a narrow way of thinking that everything else simply threatens that goal, and should therefore be discarded. It makes no sense because preservable vistas simply don't exist at every turn and it's possible to have preserved view corridors and an impressive skyline.

What constitutes a vista can be objective, but there are definite, objective axes of view (view corridors) which exist in cities and which are sometimes exploited by those who build on those sites to the benefit of the viewer. A triangular site pointed at a prominent downtown street with a tall building becomes a real, quantifiable vista in terms of geography. So does a building sitting at the head of a street, or on an unusual site where the street curves around.
 
adma said:
I think it's more the "tall beefy skyline" as a be-all and end-all to urbanity. (Besides, it sounds a little too Tom Of Finland for its own good. I'd like a little urban cunnilingus allowance here...)
Click to expand...

Thank you for that response. I really needed that smile in my day.
 
adma said:
I think it's more the "tall beefy skyline" as a be-all and end-all to urbanity. (Besides, it sounds a little too Tom Of Finland for its own good. I'd like a little urban cunnilingus allowance here...)
Click to expand...

Post of the month!
 
Feb 18
5456769625_13e6ecb3ba_b.jpg


5457378944_ab9c4c566d_b.jpg


5456768015_545e60435d_b.jpg


5456767217_1112961044_b.jpg
 
I admit I had to do a search for the Tom of Finland reference. Wow. More wangs than a Markham open house. Great to see the L-tower finally get above grade after all the designs and re-designs and gnashing of teeth.
 
I thought we were to see all steel construction for L-Tower? Looks like a lot of rebar and concrete so far to me.
 
Probably a post by someone from the rarely accurate, Daily Commercial News. They state that a lot.
 
It was a discussion that took place last year, and someone from Cityzen confirmed that that is not the case. Speaking of which, Cityzen has been quiet here. They don't post much anymore.
 
Every day I drive by this site and every day I find myself amazed that a 200m tower will somehow rise from this crowded sliver of a foundation.

Curious how the footprint of the Ritz compares with this. I can't think of a more appropriate comparison.
 
Ritz actually had a pretty beefy footprint when it was at the ground floor. Trump and 1KW are better comparisons
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top