Toronto The New Residences of Yorkville Plaza | 92.05m | 31s | Camrost-Felcorp | WZMH COMPLETE

[DarkSideDenizen]

CBC News article from Wednesday...

"Highrise condos behind Queen's Park to proceed."

"Construction on two highrise condo towers just north of the Ontario legislature in downtown Toronto will not meet any further provincial opposition, even though they will mar views of the historic building, Premier Dalton McGuinty said Wednesday."

Full story: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/toronto/story/2011/01/19/ontario-legislature-towers.html

Read more: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/toronto/story/2011/01/19/ontario-legislature-towers.html#ixzz1BXwlSyQg

 

[junctionist]

Queen's Park is part of our heritage as an urban planning achievement. The reality is that Queen's Park is inherently urban, a central public space with a house of democracy located within. But if all the greenery is fooling you, just move your head 90 degrees and you'll see a beautiful urban built form. (Less so in hospital alley.) To think the vista as it is not urban suggests insecurity at least among some of the comments I've read, that we're Muddy York unless we fill every scene with high-rise towers. Toronto became a big city by the late 19th century, when the built form was overwhelmingly low-rise.

We're an even bigger city today, and it's up to big metropolises with extensive low-rise heritage to have more sophisticated plans than "skyscrapers everywhere". It's up to us, not Regina, to preserve heritage vistas, because we are the metropolis, and we're supposed to lead. If we don't, why should the smaller cities look up to us?

We can preserve the great accomplishments of previous generations that add character to our city, and keep it from becoming generic. To repeat the same high-rise development formula no matter the context will have a way of making every urban scene seem very similar, rather than to have diversity of cityscapes and views. The generic metropolis is one where development seemed to have just happened haphazardly for some profit, with little regard to heritage architecture or urban planning, even in terms of the greatest landmarks. I have confidence in new high-rise architecture in Toronto, but placed haphazardly, it can diminish the overall impact of our cityscapes and our city in general. Today, the view terminus intrusion is minor. By tolerating such compromises, the next development could have a much uglier impact.

 

[Automation Gallery]

"Highrise condos behind Queen's Park to proceed."

"Construction on two highrise condo towers just north of the Ontario legislature in downtown Toronto will not meet any further provincial opposition, even though they will mar views of the historic building, Premier Dalton McGuinty said Wednesday."

Right on, for gods sake they are 140 meter buildings a mile away.

 

[junctionist]

Right on, for gods sake they are 140 meter buildings a mile away.

I think everyone, no matter their viewpoint, recognizes that there are bound to be skyscrapers nearby in a large city like this. People are fine with that, but not necessarily in the very limited but critical range north of the legislative building.

 

[alklay]

Junctionist, your put it very well in your #527 post. Urban does not mean skycrapers. Urban can mean "beautifully preserved historic vistas".

 

[Red October]

Queen's Park is part of our heritage as an urban planning achievement. The reality is that Queen's Park is inherently urban, a central public space with a house of democracy located within. But if all the greenery is fooling you, just move your head 90 degrees and you'll see a beautiful urban built form. (Less so in hospital alley.) To think the vista as it is not urban suggests insecurity at least among some of the comments I've read, that we're Muddy York unless we fill every scene with high-rise towers. Toronto became a big city by the late 19th century, when the built form was overwhelmingly low-rise.

We're an even bigger city today, and it's up to big metropolises with extensive low-rise heritage to have more sophisticated plans than "skyscrapers everywhere". It's up to us, not Regina, to preserve heritage vistas, because we are the metropolis, and we're supposed to lead. If we don't, why should the smaller cities look up to us?

We can preserve the great accomplishments of previous generations that add character to our city, and keep it from becoming generic. To repeat the same high-rise development formula no matter the context will have a way of making every urban scene seem very similar, rather than to have diversity of cityscapes and views. The generic metropolis is one where development seemed to have just happened haphazardly for some profit, with little regard to heritage architecture or urban planning, even in terms of the greatest landmarks. I have confidence in new high-rise architecture in Toronto, but placed haphazardly, it can diminish the overall impact of our cityscapes and our city in general. Today, the view terminus intrusion is minor. By tolerating such compromises, the next development could have a much uglier impact.

*Start's slow clap...*

 

[UrbanFervour]

I was against these towers being so tall but seeing as the OMB has made this decision, I hope the towers will meet the sky in an interesting way. Since it's the skyline north ofthe legislature that is the issue here, could this not be seen as a design opportunity to ENHANCE the vista up univesity? The 4 seasons already pokes out above Queen's Park. For me, it would be unfortunate if this endedup being another set of generic flat-topped glass boxes. What if there was an elegant crown or spire on these new buildings... from a distance, they might be less likely to fight with the dramatic pitched roofline of the legilature.

 

[MisterF]

They're all in small provincial cities.

Paris

Washington, DC

Rome

Taipei

London

Most if not all of these cities are just as large and dense as Toronto. Restricting high rises in certain areas, or even most of the city, isn't provincial. Just the opposite - thinking that high rises should go unrestricted all over the city is a far more provincial attitude. That's what cities do to try to impress people by looking bigger than they really are.

 

[Hipster Duck]

Good posts, junctionist and MisterF.

One more point that skyscraper fanboys seem to miss is that to really appreciate the aesthetics of tall buildings, you need low-rise areas to protect skyline views. For example, the MINT financial district is quite a sight, but there are increasingly fewer vantage points from which you can appreciate it because we increasingly build high rises all over the place. You can barely see it from the islands anymore; Cityplace obstructs its view from the Gardiner from at least as far east as Bathurst; Regent Park will obscure some of its view from Riverdale and the Pure Spirit/Distillery condos will mar it from the east.

If we keep doing this, we end up with a skyline like Sao Paulo or Seoul - which really isn't a skyline at all. The reason why most pictures of Sao Paulo are taken from the air is because you can't appreciate the city's immensity from any other angle. And, of course, how many of us only want to experience Toronto's skyline from a helicopter?

 

[gabe]

You wont have to worry about Toronto skyline looking like Sao Paulo or Seoul anytime soon, those cities have over 20 million people

 

[Ramako]

Good posts, junctionist and MisterF.

One more point that skyscraper fanboys seem to miss is that to really appreciate the aesthetics of tall buildings, you need low-rise areas to protect skyline views. For example, the MINT financial district is quite a sight, but there are increasingly fewer vantage points from which you can appreciate it because we increasingly build high rises all over the place. You can barely see it from the islands anymore; Cityplace obstructs its view from the Gardiner from at least as far east as Bathurst; Regent Park will obscure some of its view from Riverdale and the Pure Spirit/Distillery condos will mar it from the east.

If we keep doing this, we end up with a skyline like Sao Paulo or Seoul - which really isn't a skyline at all. The reason why most pictures of Sao Paulo are taken from the air is because you can't appreciate the city's immensity from any other angle. And, of course, how many of us only want to experience Toronto's skyline from a helicopter?

The same thing can be said of Manhattan where there is no "core" per se but layers upon layers of skyscrapers. It's just as majestic a sight to behold.

 

[toto]

I was at University and Dundas the other day, looking up toward Queen's Park and thought that there are so many distracting elements in front of it, that anything behind it would go unnoticed. So where is the vista? In postcards taken from vantage points that few people would have access to? The clearest view is from College and University. A building would have to be over 200M to seen from there. Forget the vista and spend some $$ on cleaning up the park and grounds. Especially the surface parking lot and driveway in front of the building.

 

[Hipster Duck]

The same thing can be said of Manhattan where there is no "core" per se but layers upon layers of skyscrapers. It's just as majestic a sight to behold.

You have to go to Brooklyn or Jersey to really size up Manhattan's skyline. There are also low-rise areas, like Greenwich Village where you can get a good panorama of Midtown. And, of course, there's the Central Park lawn. Manhattan has a surprising number of low rise areas from which you get sweeping vistas.

New York actually is more stringent about preserving view corridors than Toronto, hence they rejected a proposal to build a 1,200 foot skyscraper across the street from Penn station because it would have ruined the view and prominence of the Empire State building.

You wont have to worry about Toronto skyline looking like Sao Paulo or Seoul anytime soon, those cities have over 20 million people

I could have said the same thing about a Brazilian or Korean city of 3 to 5 million. You can't get a good view of the Curitiba or Busan skyline, either.

 

[Traynor]

^New York has still not rejected those proposals completely. They are still in the works. See below:

More importantly, New York's low-rise section between midtown and downtown (that offers those sweeping vistas), owes its existence to geology, not politics. The bedrock under Manhattan lies in North-South folds and is closer to the surface in downtown and midtown, making it impractical and expensive to anchor skyscrapers anywhere else. The sandy shale in the city between these two peaks, makes 200 meter towers impractical. Believe me, if they could have, they would have filled that part of the island with them as well.

Scroll>>>>>

(Render courtesy STR at SSP found here: http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=123628&page=602 )

 

[golodhendil]

Most if not all of these cities are just as large and dense as Toronto. Restricting high rises in certain areas, or even most of the city, isn't provincial. Just the opposite - thinking that high rises should go unrestricted all over the city is a far more provincial attitude. That's what cities do to try to impress people by looking bigger than they really are.

Even in that picture of Arc de Triomphe you can clearly see the skyscrapers in La Defense impinging on the view, so even that vista had not been completely protected.

And then if we are going to start listing cities...
Singapore:

Tokyo:

Hong Kong:

(Legislature)

(Government House)

Boston (a city notoriously protective of its heritage):

Philadelphia:

The Hague:

Did the skyscrapers behind these historic seats of power really take away their dignity? Are these all insecure cities trying to look bigger than they are, or are they all visionless, soulless "generic metropolises" that threw away their ideals and sold themselves out to Big Money? I suppose it's a matter of taste, but many people would say no.

One more point that skyscraper fanboys seem to miss is that to really appreciate the aesthetics of tall buildings, you need low-rise areas to protect skyline views. For example, the MINT financial district is quite a sight, but there are increasingly fewer vantage points from which you can appreciate it because we increasingly build high rises all over the place. You can barely see it from the islands anymore; Cityplace obstructs its view from the Gardiner from at least as far east as Bathurst; Regent Park will obscure some of its view from Riverdale and the Pure Spirit/Distillery condos will mar it from the east.

If we keep doing this, we end up with a skyline like Sao Paulo or Seoul - which really isn't a skyline at all. The reason why most pictures of Sao Paulo are taken from the air is because you can't appreciate the city's immensity from any other angle. And, of course, how many of us only want to experience Toronto's skyline from a helicopter?

Why should our appreciation of Toronto's skyline be limited to the handful of skyscrapers at the MINT, and why should said appreciation be limited to/dictated by the street level view in the 1.5 km radius around that intersection? Rather than "obscuring" the skyline, the new highrises have merely expanded it. And Toronto has plenty of lowrise areas minutes from the Financial District where the skyline can be fully appreciated. Stand at the Porter ferry terminal; walk along the Bathurst St bridge; take a streetcar ride on Broadview Ave; walk around the open areas at UofT; or just go up a few floors on many of the apartments and condos outside the core. There is no shortage of vantage points in the foreseeable future.