Toronto One Thirty Eight | 130.1m | 29s | Cityzen | BBB

I hope the greenery turns out as good as that tower in Milan, Italy.

"Bosco Verticale" - the Vertical Forest

Bosco-Verticale-by-Boeri-Studio-_dezeen_bann.jpg
 
I hope that the trees and other greenery chosen can survive the high cold winds of winter in Toronto. I know that my cedars on my balcony, which is above the 40th floor got quite severe wind burn over this past mild winter. This despite my watering them at every chance on any day above zero Celsius. It is challenging to have trees or shrubs that high up outdoors survive a mild winter let alone a typical winter.
 
I wonder about some of the cedars that have been growing out of fractures in to rock face along the Niagara Escarpment: some of them are hundreds of years old, and would face similarly windy conditions. I believe that here, the greenery will need to be sheltered behind at least some glass. The trees up at the top of Shangri-La are entirely sheltered behind two-floor high glass walls, for example. Meanwhile, the deciduous trees on the terraces at Picasso—not behind glass—are already noticeably green, ahead of trees in general here.

42
 
It's not so much the wind but the protecting of the roots. Boxes get really cold if not well insulated. Also they need to be eastern white cedar, not just any cedar. Wind burn is ok, eventually they will grow windswept and dwarfed in such conditions which looks really neat.
 
interchange42 said:
I wonder about some of the cedars that have been growing out of fractures in to rock face along the Niagara Escarpment: some of them are hundreds of years old, and would face similarly windy conditions. I believe that here, the greenery will need to be sheltered behind at least some glass. The trees up at the top of Shangri-La are entirely sheltered behind two-floor high glass walls, for example. Meanwhile, the deciduous trees on the terraces at Picasso—not behind glass—are already noticeably green, ahead of trees in general here.

42
Click to expand...

I think it is the wind combined with the freezing cold effects on the root ball for trees in pots above ground where the temperatures get a lot colder than below ground.
 
Went to the skyscraper museum in NY this weekend and they had an exhibition on Singapore's major push for very green oriented buildings, with many of them incorporating very interesting designs with large amounts of greenery, living walls, etc.. This building's design seems headed in that direction. I would love to see more proposals in Toronto take a similar route towards incorporating more green in their designs, over and above the green roofs that seem to mostly be glorified lawns. Some of Singapore's green integration was pretty ingenious.
 
Living in a neighbourhood that's experienced major damage in ice storms from falling tree branches, I really wonder what a serious storm would do to these trees, and what kind of effect an ice-covered branch falling 25 stories might have.
 
Urban-Affair said:
Went to the skyscraper museum in NY this weekend and they had an exhibition on Singapore's major push for very green oriented buildings, with many of them incorporating very interesting designs with large amounts of greenery, living walls, etc.. This building's design seems headed in that direction. I would love to see more proposals in Toronto take a similar route towards incorporating more green in their designs, over and above the green roofs that seem to mostly be glorified lawns. Some of Singapore's green integration was pretty ingenious.
Click to expand...

To be honest, in Singapore greenery will sprout from anywhere even if you're not paying attention to it.
 
PMT said:
OMB hearing scheduled for January 9, 2017: https://www.omb.gov.on.ca/ecs/CaseDetail.aspx?n=PL150988

In the meantime, Planning recommends staff continue negotiations with the developer to resolve outstanding issues: http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2016/te/bgrd/backgroundfile-96809.pdf
Click to expand...

Something's going on here.

"This report recommends that City Council refuse the proposed demolition of all heritage structures on the property at 33 Avenue Road (the property includes municipal addresses 33-41 and 45-49 Avenue Road and 142-148 Yorkville Avenue), which is designated under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act by By-law No. 0052-2015, enacted by City Council on July 8, 9, 10 and 11, 2014.

In this case, if City Council fails to make a decision on the application within 90 days of issuing a Notice of Receipt of the application, the application is deemed to be permitted under Section 34 of the Ontario Heritage Act. The applicant must be notified of the decision by January 31, 2017."
 
PMT said:
From the CBC:

Developer wants to build on Yorkville heritage site
Click to expand...

Pisses me off; here's KWT quoted in that article: "...the village of Yorkville doesn't need a new glass tower, especially at the detriment of losing this very valuable heritage asset."

Unless the plans have changed, that's just wholly disingenuous -- the most recent proposal contemplates for keeping a significant portion of the heritage building.
 
ADRM said:
Pisses me off; here's KWT quoted in that article: "...the village of Yorkville doesn't need a new glass tower, especially at the detriment of losing this very valuable heritage asset."

Unless the plans have changed, that's just wholly disingenuous -- the most recent proposal contemplates for keeping a significant portion of the heritage building.
Click to expand...

Nice selective use of quotes to go after KWT (who is unreasonably hated by many here on UT). Heritage Services staff is also opposed, and KWT is sticking up for City staff. There's a reason why the city's opposing this and it's going to the OMB.

"[Planner and manager of heritage preservation services Mary] MacDonald said reducing the structures to their facades is not in keeping with the city's heritage conservation policy. City staff also say the project's height violates zoning bylaws."
 
ShonTron said:
Nice selective use of quotes to go after KWT. Heritage Services staff is also opposed, and KWT is sticking up for her staff. There's a reason why the city's opposing this and it's going to the OMB.

"[Planner and manager of heritage preservation services Mary] MacDonald said reducing the structures to their facades is not in keeping with the city's heritage conservation policy. City staff also say the project's height violates zoning bylaws."
Click to expand...

"Selective use of quotes to go after KWT" -- what on earth are you talking about or accusing me of, pal? I didn't write the article. And can you find for me in that article the quote that illustrates her even keeled approach to the development?

I don't appreciate people -- especially moderators -- accusing me of unfairly misrepresenting someone's position when I'm doing nothing of the sort.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top