Toronto Pinnacle One Yonge | 351.85m | 106s | Pinnacle | Hariri Pontarini

Interesting how they have proposed a stepped down approach to the waterfront. We got the exact opposite effect in Southcore with the short buildings starting south of the CBD at 130m rising to 230m closest to the lake. The Southcore lake view would have been much more aesthetically pleasing had the build form been reversed
 
I have no issue with tall buildings on the waterfront. However, I do understand why they do this. So there is sunshine for those that are north of them. However, this isn't important when shadows fall on highways or train tracks.

I like the idea of connecting Cooper and Church Streets with a new tunnel under the tracks. That would be great!
 
I know, right? How dare we intervene on the private sector instead of just letting them have their way!

Naw. We need public involvement, we need government intervention, and we need to tweak developers' (whose major goal is profit above all else) plans to create something that is better for the city.

Can that result in reduced heights and decreased density in proposals like this? Yes. But it's not done without careful study, and it's certainly not some thoughtless "hacking-away" at developers' precious works of perfection, as so many of you like to imagine the process is.
 
Gphorce said:
Great report, and I agree with Greenleaf, the original plan looks much too dense and heavy for this area. I would love to see a tall building at one location, but the overall massing of this proposal compared to the city would feel very oppressive at street level. A happy medium is what should be looked at.
Click to expand...

Oppressive all depends on what one is accustomed to. I bet Hamilton density feels oppressive to someone from Orillia. To someone from Hong Kong, One Yonge is 'normal'. If some Torontonians aren't comfortable with this level of density, they don't have to live there. There are plenty of people who'd have zero issue with it.

Why a small group of 'experts' are dictating to the masses what level of density we like is beyond me. Let the market decide.
 
Last edited:
Pretty sure the majority of people find 22 FAR too much. A kilometre long row of cheap tiled skyscrapers is also something the majority would agree Toronto doesn't need. Ignoring the problems associated with building too much density, I would say very few share your aesthetics of mega complexes and towers dominating the downtown area and, there is absolutely nothing wrong with it.

isaidso said:
Oppressive all depends on what one is accustomed to. I bet Hamilton density feels oppressive to someone from Orillia. To someone from Hong Kong, One Yonge is 'normal'. If some Torontonians aren't comfortable with this level of density, they don't have to live there. There are plenty of people who'd have zero issue with it.

Why a small group of 'experts' are dictating to the masses what level of density we like is beyond me. Let the market decide.
Click to expand...
 
isaidso said:
Oppressive all depends on what one is accustomed to. I bet Hamilton density feels oppressive to someone from Orillia. To someone from Hong Kong, One Yonge is 'normal'. If some Torontonians aren't comfortable with this level of density, they don't have to live there. There are plenty of people who'd have zero issue with it.
Click to expand...

They don't have to live there, but they may have to work there or walk past it every day, and deal with the traffic and overcrowding that is bad enough already.
 
Caltrane posted this on SSP. Don't know the source:

000-torontofutureskyline.png
 
SP!RE said:
I know, right? How dare we intervene on the private sector instead of just letting them have their way!

Naw. We need public involvement, we need government intervention, and we need to tweak developers' (whose major goal is profit above all else) plans to create something that is better for the city.

Can that result in reduced heights and decreased density in proposals like this? Yes. But it's not done without careful study, and it's certainly not some thoughtless "hacking-away" at developers' precious works of perfection, as so many of you like to imagine the process is.
Click to expand...

Strange Advance said:
^That straw man is weak. Without the snark, your post is sensible.
Click to expand...

Spire's post was sensible, and what is straw man about pointing out the universal fact that the private sector is concerned not with the greater good, but with profit. This - more than anything else, is why we need strong planning controls.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top