HHC
Active Member
Good to hear that ugly concrete monstrosity will be put down. As for the obstructed views, I'm not too keen on.
Toronto The New Residences of Yorkville Plaza | 92.05m | 31s | Camrost-Felcorp | WZMH COMPLETE
- Thread starter maestro
- Start date
Red October
Senior Member
BC:
Alberta:
Saskatchewan:
Manitoba:
Quebec
New Brunswick
Canada:
Notice one thing in common?
Alberta:
Saskatchewan:
Manitoba:
Quebec
New Brunswick
Canada:
Notice one thing in common?
Ramako
Moderator
^^^
If you were to take a photo of Queen's Park from as close up as those photos, you wouldn't see the towers in the background.
As a side note, seeing those pictures makes me realize that we have the ugliest legislature in the country.
If you were to take a photo of Queen's Park from as close up as those photos, you wouldn't see the towers in the background.
As a side note, seeing those pictures makes me realize that we have the ugliest legislature in the country.
Red October
Senior Member
In some of the pictures, yes (In fact, that Quebec one is closer up because I cheated a bit. A further back one actually has an ugly concrete tower in the view). But what about the first 4 and Canada? The BC one looks closer up than it is, that's only because the BC parliament buildings are HUGE.
Agreed. I like the brick that seems to be very prevelant in many historic buildings in Toronto, but we do have one of the ugliest, and smallest compared to the size of the province, might I add..
The City of Ottawa has guidelines for which views from what vantage points are to be protected. I see no reason why Toronto shouldn't be the same.
http://www.ottawa.ca/city_hall/ottawa2020/official_plan/vol_2a/former_ottawa/central/index_en.html
http://www.ottawa.ca/city_hall/ottawa2020/official_plan/vol_2a/former_ottawa/central/index_en.html
MLiPreti
New Member
Where does context fit into all of this? How many of these legislative buildings have a dense major thoroughfare directly behind them? It's easy to compare the other provinces when their capitals have a completely different population than us. Victoria, Edmonton, Regina, Winnipeg, Quebec City, Fredericton, they're just simply not comparable and I think to pretend that they are is a little ridiculous. If our legislative building wasn't located essentially in the heart of the city with Bloor St as a backdrop I might be more willing to agree but considering its location I think we have to be realistic and not idealistic.
Red October
Senior Member
Downtown Quebec City is just as dense as the area immediately surrounding Queen's Park, if not more so. Though that is the one with the ugly tower, but look at how much worse the tower makes the view of it..
MLiPreti
New Member
"but look at how much worse the tower makes the view of it.."
From this one, arbitrary angle in which you stand for maybe 3 seconds. When you're standing in front of these buildings you are in an environment, not a photograph. When you're in that environment you see all of the buildings surrounding it and *that* is what you remember when you leave, that feeling you get from the environment, not that for a brief second you didn't see anything behind it (which you would see buildings anyway because our vision doesn't just suddenly cut off).
From this one, arbitrary angle in which you stand for maybe 3 seconds. When you're standing in front of these buildings you are in an environment, not a photograph. When you're in that environment you see all of the buildings surrounding it and *that* is what you remember when you leave, that feeling you get from the environment, not that for a brief second you didn't see anything behind it (which you would see buildings anyway because our vision doesn't just suddenly cut off).
junctionist
Senior Member
It's not the same, anyway, because the Quebec legislative building doesn't terminate a long view corridor. The impact of high-rises behind Queen's Park in Toronto would be potentially greater; the towers behind it would create a greater range of awkward perspectives down the boulevard that is University Avenue.
Why shouldn't we be idealistic? This building represents our greatest ideals as a culture. Realistically, there are so many places to build high-rise buildings that if we have reasons not to do so behind our legislature building, we can plan not to do so. Shouldn't we be in control of how our city takes shape? Yes, we are a larger city with a lot of development, but that hardly means that we can't have ideals and a vision that's respectful of past urban planning and architectural achievements. In fact, we're realistically in a better position to take a strong position on this issue, because with all the development pressures, we don't have much to lose. We're not desperate for towers, except for some skyscraper geeks. A big city should mean big planning power to create a beautiful city, not generic metropolis.
MLiPreti said:
Why shouldn't we be idealistic? This building represents our greatest ideals as a culture. Realistically, there are so many places to build high-rise buildings that if we have reasons not to do so behind our legislature building, we can plan not to do so. Shouldn't we be in control of how our city takes shape? Yes, we are a larger city with a lot of development, but that hardly means that we can't have ideals and a vision that's respectful of past urban planning and architectural achievements. In fact, we're realistically in a better position to take a strong position on this issue, because with all the development pressures, we don't have much to lose. We're not desperate for towers, except for some skyscraper geeks. A big city should mean big planning power to create a beautiful city, not generic metropolis.
yyzer
Senior Member
Is this what Queen's Park represents - our greatest ideals as a culture?? I'm not sure that I agree with you, maybe I'm just a bit more cynical than you......
MLiPreti
New Member
To you.
Again, saying how important this building is is fine, but it doesn't explain the merits of keeping it visually isolated. These buildings were symbols of government and power and importance because they were the largest, tallest buildings in the area. That's not the case anymore and I think to fabricate the symbolism by making them untouchables and having to legislate that nothing looks more dominant from very specific angles is ridiculous. I'm not saying that I'm right and anyone wanting to preserve the view is wrong, I just haven't heard any logical argument for why it should be kept. All I ever see is "well what is the argument for destroying the view?" which isn't an argument. If you're going to argue the need for restrictions, you need to have a logical reason and I just don't see the fallacy of "because it's important" as one of them.
And why does having buildings in the background make this city a generic metropolis? Whether such buildings are built behind Queens Park or not, they will exist, making this city what you would call a "generic metropolis".
Red October
Senior Member
Sorry for the enormous picture, but this is kinda the point I am trying to make.
Picture this with generic glass condos behind it.. much worse. A lot less imposing.
I know Queen's Park isn't exactly the US Capitol Building, but it's the same sort of idea, complete with the corridor and vista.
Picture this with generic glass condos behind it.. much worse. A lot less imposing.
I know Queen's Park isn't exactly the US Capitol Building, but it's the same sort of idea, complete with the corridor and vista.
MLiPreti
New Member
Sorry for the enormous picture, but this is kinda the point I am trying to make.
Picture this with generic glass condos behind it.. much worse. A lot less imposing.
I know Queen's Park isn't exactly the US Capitol Building, but it's the same sort of idea, complete with the corridor and vista.
And again, I bring up context. If the US Capital Building were located in the core of a city full of skyscrapers (which it obviously isn't for security reasons *which is a logical reason, which is my point*) then yes I would say the same thing.
Last edited:
Red October
Senior Member
But that's the thing, it could have been.
Washington DC is a relatively big city that is pretty dense, and they made a height restriction to preserve views like that.. Same thing Ottawa did to preserve the view of our parliament buildings and more specifically the Peace Tower.
I'm not saying Toronto should have an overall height restriction, as I usually hate them, but they should have one for the area immediately surrounding Queen's Park.
Washington has height restrictions as does Ottawa to ensure the government buildings are not overwhelmed.