Toronto The Bond | 138.68m | 42s | Lifetime | Core Architects COMPLETE

Interchange42, the planners have stitched a straightjacket here that's allowed this formulaic blandness. Surely, " vertical anarchy " as you put it, can have it's upside too. And talk about gilding the lily, Light describes this sea of anonymity as " an understated background of glassy grids " in advance of Gehry's artistry, when and if, it materializes.
 
Yes, let's blame the planners for not allowing any height at all on all of these properties, and let's blame them for the developer's architectural designs.

Is that what you're saying?

42
 
I think you know perfectly well what I'm saying...central planning often produces very predictable results. Time to move on.
 
I fully agree with 42; it's massively simplistic and reductionist to suggest that monotony in tower design is the sole fault of the planning department (or even largely their fault). Quite simply, if the planning department didn't impose height restrictions, the city would be a disaster from a planning/urban design perspective and it's illogical to suggest that the one bit of solace in such a reality would be more interestingly designed towers.
 
OK then, let's all agree to have boring architecture all the same height. Of course, less restrictive height limits does not guarantee a better architectural product.
 
OK then, let's all agree to have boring architecture all the same height. Of course, less restrictive height limits does not guarantee a better architectural product.

That's not remotely what either 42 or I were suggesting. Equating boring architecture (which I'm sure 42 doesn't advocate and certainly no I do not) with height restrictions or sameness in height, isn't an argument that becomes more convincing with each repetition of it. Please do correct me if I'm mischaracterizing your assertion.
 
ADRM, I imagine it has to do with embracing an interesting skyline, with interesting components, something which we all would like to see, I believe. There doesn't have to be direct link between a limiting of height and the standard outcomes which are evident. But it may be a factor if the developer is limited in ROI because of height limits in these desirable quarters. Maybe someone more adept than I at financing these kinds of investments can wade in on this. Certainly, there are other factors at play which churn out all these facsimiles. It's still a good discussion to have.
 
I would rather see a staggered skyline too: the tabletop that is coming together in the area is not particularly attractive.

The fact remains, however, that developers all want to be able to build as high as (or even higher than) everyone else around them has been allowed to go. The City knows, however, that the infrastructure in place simply cannot support unbridled growth, therefore there are limits in place, as there are all across the city at varying heights and densities.

The City thought that Festival Tower would be the one tall one in this area, and granted them a particular height based on the give-back to the community that the cultural facility that the Lightbox represented. Everything else in the surroundings was supposed to be shorter, and as I said, was supposed to get shorter the closer it got to Spadina.

The OMB decided, however, that the community benefit of the Lightbox should not factor into whether other developers seeking to build in the area get the same height or not, so up they were all allowed to go, as high at 157 metres. It has become their de facto unalienable right as property owners in the area.

So, if you want to aim a figurative gun at anyone on this issue, aim it at the OMB.

The next big question here though is, will to new de facto height be 187 metres? That's what the owner of the site on the SE corner of King and Spadina wants as they sail that boat off towards OMB waters… which I suspect are going to be awfully choppy.

42
 
Today:

bondP1000089.JPG
bondP1000098.JPG
 

Attachments

  • bondP1000089.JPG
    bondP1000089.JPG
    354.4 KB · Views: 1,526
  • bondP1000098.JPG
    bondP1000098.JPG
    332.8 KB · Views: 1,518
What happened to the panes of glass that we're supposed to connect the balconies (a la Luna at CityPlace)? The Cheapening?
 

Back
Top