Toronto Ïce Condominiums at York Centre | 234.07m | 67s | Lanterra | a—A

I'm almost leaning towards a preservation standpoint. The drive in is pretty amazing, and for that I'd like to see it kept. Maybe if/when personal cars aren't as widespread, part of it could be given over for LRT purposes of some sort. Four lanes of auto traffic, two lanes of rail. Bury it out past the Ex, and return the waterfront to the city in the west end. There's always the rail corridor to deal with though.

AoD, I like your separation + skylights idea, it would definitely add some airiness and light to the space below.
 
Claroche, I concur; I hope that some day when cars are less relevant the Gardiner can become an elevated park like the High Line.
IMG_1839.JPG
 
Last edited:
Ice looks so disconcertingly slim, in the best way possible. To me it looks like there could only be two units per floor... obviously it's wider than it looks to the naked eye but I find it to be an odd effect.
 
Last edited:
AlvinofDiaspar said:
Transportfan:

I think it would be more accurate to say that almost everyone on UT want the negative effects Gardiner and ancillary transportation infrastructure had on the surrounding areas gone.
Click to expand...

It can't be that bad. Condos in the area are selling like hotcakes. I also think the Gardiner makes a cool piece of urban transportation artwork.
 
SP!RE said:
Ice looks so disconcertingly slim, in the best way possible. To me it looks like there could only be two units per floor... obviously it's wider than it looks to the naked eye but I find it to be an odd effect.
Click to expand...

The suites are very compact, if I recall the plans from way back there are about 10 apartments per floor plus there are elevators, stairwells, garbage chutes, hallways, utility closets/water risers, HVAC etc. Crazy slim!
 
Torontovibe said:
^^ Only the ones who live downtown and have to walk under it, on a regular basis.
Click to expand...

These buildings r bringing sooo much tax money to the city...y don't they use it to beautify that walk a little bit. Make it more pleasant....everybody uses it to get to the water....tourists, locals....c'mon city people.
 
steveve said:
lol yup, imo it kinda kills the skyline view facing directly west. too dominant and fat! actually, the entire directly facing west view of the CBD has always looked off.. not great composition and the towers don't work that well together, only in scale.
Click to expand...

the issue with Toronto skyline is there are a lot of tall buildings but all crammed into a small space blocking each other, making the view less impressive than it really can be given the scale. So unless you can have a unblocked bird's view, you only can see less than half of what are out there. Plus the lack of high rises east of Yonge doesn't help.
 
kkgg7 said:
the issue with Toronto skyline is there are a lot of tall buildings but all crammed into a small space blocking each other, making the view less impressive than it really can be given the scale. So unless you can have a unblocked bird's view, you only can see less than half of what are out there. Plus the lack of high rises east of Yonge doesn't help.
Click to expand...

Exactly! That's why the financial district, while dense and tall, ends up making downtown Toronto look small in many views relative to its actual size! And finally, when we are seeing growth of tall buildings (50+ storeys) outside of the financial district (albeit residential), the wonderful Tall Buildings Study rears its head, which if passed, will most stifle large-scale (and hence skyline-registering) developments along Yonge, Church and Bay Streets (from Queen to Bloor Streets). Not to mention the existing height restriction in the Entertainment district (why is it there anyway?). Only the Southcore area has potential for super tall buildings (hopefully).
 
hmm, while I love my tall buildings also, if the only argument is that it looks small compared to other cities because all the tall buildings are in one spot and thats why we should do away with a tall buildings study, well then I dont know if its a strong enough argument. If the skyline is the main concern, then I would have to agree with some of the ideas in the tall buildings study, which actually is concerned with having area specific guidelines to focus where to put the growth for developers, who have really no care if they put up a 60 storey building in an area whose character will be adversely affected by that kind of scale of development. (Think King West, who now appears to be getting some out of scale stuff, whilst being nice looking, kind of doesn't "fit" anymore.)

Whatever happened to the midrise along avenue stuff???? That was in my opinion in many areas perfectly what was needed. If its good enough for Paris, its good enough for us in my opionion, and it seems to build strong density consistantly along roads, which if people want subways so badly, might really help get those denisties up to support a real subway instead of clusters of tall buildings randomly along an avenue.
 
Last edited:
^^^^ Hi, I definitely am not saying that we should have tall buildings regardless of what happens at the street. If anything, I'm saying people at city hall should focus more on how new developments in and around the core meet the street, and keep the character of neighborhoods and buildings intact but allow for more height, which would benefit developers, and in return, ask them to provide funds to improve the surrounding infrastructure and streetscapes. That way, everyone wins: the developers, because they can build more and hence gain more profit; the infra. and streetscape through funds from the developers (i.e. Aura's $1M for the extra three floors), and the downtown businesses in general due to increased tourism and higher level of appeal of the downtown core (through the aforementioned improvements to the public space), along with many more residents (i.e. taller buildings = more condo units = more people in the core = more retail, restaurant and nightlife options). :)

I like the idea of the Tall Buildings Study and the points they raise on keeping the lively vibe going and making developers more accountable for what they put up, but I don't see the need for the strict height restrictions through much of the core (barring of course areas like St. Lawrence neighborhood, etc.)
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top