Planning at Distillery

[syn]

As for point towers, they are certainly more elegant and cast less of a shadow than fat monolithic stubs like those pseudo New York (a la Chrysler Building) monstrosities in North York. Height can also really add to a skyline.

The proposed buildings may be point towers, but they're still huge.

 

[Urban Shocker]

The Distillery District towers will signpost the new neighbourhood on the skyline as effectively as the TD tower did when it was built and will thus serve a symbolic purpose as well as a practical one.

Given the context - rebirth of empty and unused commercial buildings as a new downtown commercial district with housing - the form the towers take, and their integration with the old buildings is appropriate. Why would such a thing presage the construction of a tall tower at the intersection of, say, Logan and Riverdale? There is no such link.

 

[alklay]

The Distillery District towers will signpost the new neighbourhood on the skyline as effectively as the TD tower did when it was built and will thus serve a symbolic purpose as well as a practical one.

Given the context - rebirth of empty and unused commercial buildings as a new downtown commercial district with housing - the form the towers take, and their integration with the old buildings is appropriate. Why would such a thing presage the construction of a tall tower at the intersection of, say, Logan and Riverdale? There is no such link.

The rest of us, in fact the whole debate about appropriate urban forms, is about physical context, not economic.

And since when is good urban design about 'signposting' a neighbourhood in the skyline? Skylines have little to nothing to do with appropriate urban planning.

 

[Urban Shocker]

Signposting is the effect that tall buildings have, as anyone with eyes can attest.

Much of the debate has centered around appropriate use of a historically designated district, which has been used as a NIMBY-esque wedge issue.

 

[syn]

The rest of us, in fact the whole debate about appropriate urban forms, is about physical context, not economic.

And since when is good urban design about 'signposting' a neighbourhood in the skyline? Skylines have little to nothing to do with appropriate urban planning.

Exactly. In addition, I'm sure if 50 storey towers were going up at Logan and Riverdale it could be justified as a "rebirth" or "evolution" of the area.

You can virtually always come up with some kind of reasoning like that for any development.

 

[syn]

Signposting is the effect that tall buildings have, as anyone with eyes can attest.

Much of the debate has centered around appropriate use of a historically designated district, which has been used as a NIMBY-esque wedge issue.

They can put the signposts somewhere else.

NIMBYism really has nothing to do with things here. Opposition to a project does not automatically make one a NIMBY.

 

[Urban Shocker]

Logan and Riverdale is in an established and thriving residential neighbourhood, not an abandoned, downtown former distillery site that is being brought back to life through the creation of new commercial and multi-unit residential uses. The two situations are totally different.

 

[syn]

Logan and Riverdale is in an established and thriving residential neighbourhood, not an abandoned, downtown former distillery site that is being brought back to life through the creation of new commercial and multi-unit residential uses. The two situations are totally different.

Neighbourhoods evolve. Two 50-storey towers will be a signpost for an evolving community at Logan and Riverdale, just as the TD Towers were for the Financial District.

 

[ShonTron]

Much of the debate has centered around appropriate use of a historically designated district, which has been used as a NIMBY-esque wedge issue.

I kind of dropped out the debate. US, I find most of your recent posts interesting but I take exception to this. It is not NIMBYism. I think a debate over the appropriate use of a historically designated district is very valid, and there have been good points on both sides (though I am firmly on one side of this debate). It is not a wedge issue in the definition I am familiar with.

 

[lordmandeep]

if i am not wrong the TD towers were the first major modern office buildings in Toronto.

 

[ShonTron]

if i am not wrong the TD towers were the first major modern office buildings in Toronto.

Yep, at least the first phase - the original two towers plus banking hall. And I admit that I love the image of the black first tower nearing completion, surrounded by the mix of 8, 10, 20 and 30 floor buildings dating between 1900 and 1950. Like it plopped down from the sky, a la 2001: A Space Odyssey.

 

[Urban Shocker]

Building 50 storey towers in established low-rise residential neighbourhoods such as at Logan and Riverdale is the opposite to what the official plan calls for, whereas the creation of the TD Centre was an evolution of a financial district that already had the tallest office tower in the Commonwealth.

 

[Andrew3D]

The Distillery District towers will signpost the new neighbourhood on the skyline as effectively as the TD tower did when it was built and will thus serve a symbolic purpose as well as a practical one.

Given the context - rebirth of empty and unused commercial buildings as a new downtown commercial district with housing - the form the towers take, and their integration with the old buildings is appropriate. Why would such a thing presage the construction of a tall tower at the intersection of, say, Logan and Riverdale? There is no such link.

Exactly!

 

[RJR123]

Take a look at the latest pics of Minto Midtown. Soaring new buildings, surrounded by low rise and single-family housing, making for an intensely busy and desireable neighbourhood in which to live.

 

[alklay]

Minto Midtown is surrounded by highrises on all sides.