Toronto 212 King Street West | 250m | 80s | Dream Office | SHoP

cd concept said:
Why does the Forma towers have the right to be more imposing to begin with! It's not right to give them the height that they have, to not only one but two towers. This tower deserves at least 280m in hieght being across the street from the Metro Hall. Then I wouldn't mind as much to be fair!
Click to expand...
It doesn't but that would be the effect of this height cut. So look at the positive. It hurts one project but helps another great one look more imposing.
 
torontodweller said:
why does city hall have to ruin everything good in this city?
Click to expand...
torontodweller said:
they always chop the building height. I will never forget what they did to the formerly named trump building, it looked so beautiful before city hall chopped its height and now it looks like crap
Click to expand...
torontodweller said:
you're wrong, they destroyed the art and beauty of many buildings in the last decade or so
Click to expand...
torontodweller said:
look at what city hall did to Gehry's Toronto towers and trump tower, they mauled them and now they don't look as beautiful. and this is just two examples and there are plenty of more. you're the one that's confused
Click to expand...
6d0xcb.png
 
torontodweller said:
they always chop the building height. I will never forget what they did to the formerly named trump building, it looked so beautiful before city hall chopped its height and now it looks like crap
Click to expand...
I'm of the understanding the primary reason the formerly named trump building got a floor reduction was slow unit sales.
 
UtakataNoAnnex said:
...well I'm not really a big fan of being mean to posters that are not really getting it, but yeah...this poster is really shooting those assertions from the hips without evidence or thought. >.<
Click to expand...
This board rightly and justly ain't Reddit. Funny enough, depending on which version you're going with, it actually pre-dates Reddit.
 
So, I don't know how many details I got wrong, like the color (which I just left the same) but here is my early take on this:

Toronto Model 04-22-23 212 King E.png


Toronto Model 04-22-23 212 King E2.png
 
I get a chuckle when 250m is not considered tall enough in this city. Pre 2000s typical condo heights were in the range of 100-125m, in the early 2000s +150m was tall, more recently approximately 200m has become the downtown large condo standard. Currently accordingly to skyscraperpage.com there are 17 buildings in the GTA over 200m under construction. The future proposed crop of condo buildings in the core seem to be pushing well above that height. Wait another 10 years and everyone will be proposing +300m.

Mark Twain. "Invest in land. They aren't making any more of it"
 
The Preservationist said:
I get a chuckle when 250m is not considered tall enough in this city. Pre 2000s typical condo heights were in the range of 100-125m, in the early 2000s +150m was tall, more recently approximately 200m has become the downtown large condo standard. Currently accordingly to skyscraperpage.com there are 17 buildings in the GTA over 200m under construction. The future proposed crop of condo buildings in the core seem to be pushing well above that height. Wait another 10 years and everyone will be proposing +300m.

Mark Twain. "Invest in land. They aren't making any more of it"
Click to expand...


I actually don't think all skyscrapers need to be that high, but I do believe in order to have a distinct skyline, there are particular buildings that deserve to have more height to them. 160 Font s, CIBC Square and this one are examples of that. This building looked like it was going to be gorgeous (and still might be), so these gorgeous ones should really stand out. The CN tower has been a great symbol of our city, but it's been 47 years now. It's time we added a few pieces to compliment it. Hopefully 191 Bay can be that piece.
 
UtakataNoAnnex said:
...well I'm not really a big fan of being mean to posters that are not really getting it, but yeah...this poster is really shooting those assertions from the hips without evidence or thought. >.<
Click to expand...
Dude is just going off on civil servants who are trying to do their jobs. I will admit I have a bias here, but like, these people are trying to do the right thing, based on the regulations the City has. Criticism over policy should be aimed at council, not the Toronto Public Service. All too often on this forum people feel way too comfortable calling for civil servants to lose their jobs, just because they don't agree about how tall a building should be, which like, what the hell? People shouldn't be able to pay rent, feed their families, etc, because they didn't approve another supertall?
 
TossYourJacket said:
Dude is just going off on civil servants who are trying to do their jobs. I will admit I have a bias here, but like, these people are trying to do the right thing, based on the regulations the City has. Criticism over policy should be aimed at council, not the Toronto Public Service. All too often on this forum people feel way too comfortable calling for civil servants to lose their jobs, just because they don't agree about how tall a building should be, which like, what the hell? People shouldn't be able to pay rent, feed their families, etc, because they didn't approve another supertall?
Click to expand...
Not disagreeing with that.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top