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

buildup said:
Wrong, I am NOT saying small birds are a threat to glass, but large ones clearly are - migratory or not!
Click to expand...

Got to watch out for those flying Ostriches !
 
Especially when they are flying butt first. Low centre of gravity can fragment industrial glass.
 
Last edited:
greenleaf said:
The view from Canoe, last Friday:

8131381018_d2fd6a3a17_c.jpg


8131362379_01995608d7_c.jpg
Click to expand...

Greenleaf, could you send me these in higher resolution form??? I'd be very grateful! :)
 
I think the telus building deserves more recognition on this form ! While its shaped like the all hated dreaded box I find it unique enough to standout !
 
Telus House is gorgeous indeed. The detailing is impressive, as are the overall shapes at work in its design.
 
someMidTowner said:
I think the glass is quite attractive and not at all dated looking. As for the birds, it is a damn shame. But development is a give and take sort of thing. The earth excavated to build the foundations of bank buildings like the TD Centre (the subject of that article) was turned into the Leslie St Spit, which is home to hundreds of thousands of birds. As sad as it is that these birds are dying, I don't think designs should be altered with birds in mind. We already have enough red tape.
Click to expand...

This makes no sense. The article was in large part about migratory birds, not birds that live in Toronto. I also don't see why you shouldn't at least consider adding fritting if it will stop all these deaths. We alter designs for all kinds of reasons. Avoiding animal carcasses piling up around buildings seems like a good one.
 
Wrenkin said:
This makes no sense. The article was in large part about migratory birds, not birds that live in Toronto.
Click to expand...

What on earth are you talking about? Many of the birds that live on the spit are migratory. Migratory birds don't all just pass through Toronto, lots of them nest here for the summer - on the spit. Some buildings like the new George Brown Waterfront campus use patterns on glass to prevent bird strikes, but asking that all developers to be forced into taking such measures is an insane request. Plus, ICE has fritted glass balconies which should do a lot to break up the confusing mirror like facade for the birds. I find it interesting that city birds have adapted to these conditions where other birds fail to do so.
 
someMidTowner said:
What on earth are you talking about? Many of the birds that live on the spit are migratory. Migratory birds don't all just pass through Toronto, lots of them nest here for the summer - on the spit. Some buildings like the new George Brown Waterfront campus use patterns on glass to prevent bird strikes, but asking that all developers to be forced into taking such measures is an insane request. Plus, ICE has fritted glass balconies which should do a lot to break up the confusing mirror like facade for the birds. I find it interesting that city birds have adapted to these conditions where other birds fail to do so.
Click to expand...

My understanding is that while there are resident birds (e.g. the much despised cormorants) most of the activity is in stopovers. Regardless, I'm not sure that affects my thinking since you still seem to be arguing that since some species are better off it's ok that others die (e.g. those flying south from their summering grounds in Northern Ontario). I don't know if their respective fates are commensurable, and really it's not even a very compelling trade-off re "give-and-take" since the new habitat is effectively a replacement for the previously drained marsh at the mouth of the Don (give and take again).

There appear to be some easy measures to prevent this, e.g. lighting, but I don't know that it's "insane" to request fritting on the first three stories like the people in the article call for. Maybe not worth the cost on balance, but you didn't exactly put forth a compelling argument. The "makes no sense" was directed at the whole comment, not the birds bit alone. Poor editing on my part.
 
Redlom said:
For all of you who underplayed the seriousness of Toronto's problem in relation to glass towers and migratory bird migrations when I last posted here last year, here's another article from the New York Times:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/28/world/americas/casualties-of-torontos-urban-skies.html

The reflective glass on ICE isn't even attractive...it just looks cheap and dated. Why don't we hold developers responsible for implementing attractive glass that incorporates bird-safe mechanisms?
Click to expand...

Thanks for posting this, I would have missed it otherwise. From what I've read elsewhere New York and San Fran are taking the lead, I do know that they are experimenting with less reflective glass that creates more visual noise. Hopefully they are making some headway with this.
 
someMidTowner said:
What on earth are you talking about? ...asking that all developers to be forced into taking such measures is an insane request. Plus, ICE has fritted glass balconies which should do a lot to break up the confusing mirror like facade for the birds. I find it interesting that city birds have adapted to these conditions where other birds fail to do so.
Click to expand...

If you'd have read the New York Times article I posted (and used your common sense), I have to hope you wouldn't have posted such a banal diatribe.

1. Why make a distinction between migratory and urban birds? While Daniel Klem, quoted in the article, suggested that city birds are more prone to avoiding collisions, the article talks about birds in general; I also fail to consider that urbanites have higher IQs than those birds passing through.

2. It's not insane to introduce regulation which encourages developers to implement bird-safe glass. Besides it being an appropriate measure in a world where sustainable development is a recognized principle, and in the democratic context, where citizens should be allowed and encouraged to interact with our civic and commercial leaders, technology now exists which makes bird glass a no-brainer. One example is referred to in the article: ultraviolet-patterned glass (clear to the human eye but a warning sign to birds). Here's a link http://ornilux.com/

Thanks for your opinion someMIDtowner - but next time, perhaps temper your fascination with Toronto's building craze (which, as we all know, we'll regret aesthetically and financially in 10 years when the cheapness and unoriginality of our tall towers becomes apparent) with some proper analysis.
 
Temper my fascination with Toronto's building craze? I think not! I did read the article
This is urbantoronto.ca not ohmygodsomepoorbirdsaredead.com
Just because YOU think we will regret this building boom, doesn't make it a fact. So saying "we all know" that we will regret this boom financially and aesthetically is YOUR opinion. Not a widely accepted view around here.
I think it is a shame that birds are dying from glass strikes, but builders aren't going to spend tons of extra money to satisfy the occasional bleeding heart such as yourself.
You seem to really care about this issue and I respect that. But getting all defensive of birds on a forum is really just clicktivism when you could be spending your time emailing the developers your concerns.
 
What makes birds so special?

Is it because some of them are pretty?

How many ground dwelling animals are killed when developers are excavating. How come nobody cares about the insects?
 
someMidTowner said:
Temper my fascination with Toronto's building craze? I think not! I did read the article
This is urbantoronto.ca not ohmygodsomepoorbirdsaredead.com
Just because YOU think we will regret this building boom, doesn't make it a fact. So saying "we all know" that we will regret this boom financially and aesthetically is YOUR opinion. Not a widely accepted view around here.
I think it is a shame that birds are dying from glass strikes, but builders aren't going to spend tons of extra money to satisfy the occasional bleeding heart such as yourself.
You seem to really care about this issue and I respect that. But getting all defensive of birds on a forum is really just clicktivism when you could be spending your time emailing the developers your concerns.
Click to expand...

Fair points: But I would say that while 'we all know' was a bit of hyperbole, I was earnestly appealing to your/our collective common sense - ICE and the others are super cool and all but their gratification is momentary. If we grew a pair of balls then maybe we could make them exciting now AND also sustainable for the future (eg. we shouldn't have to be worried about replacing the glass a few years down the line because we already know that the glass used doesn't comply with ideal energy efficiency standards, is faulty, etc.).

Also, I don't follow urbantoronto because I love birds - I follow because I love Toronto.

As for clicktivism, I'm as guilty as the next. Although I am undertaking a masters in environmental law and I have run for federal politics in a Toronto riding...which is to say that I'm not just chirping at you
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top