Toronto Aura at College Park | 271.87m | 78s | Canderel | Graziani + Corazza

What idiots we have in our city council, it makes me so mad to see this stupidity. Im pissed that they would refuse this tower. Whats wrong with tall buildings???? Im tierd of this city allowing box or slabs. I think we should let the city know how we feel and make this an election issue!! We want tall point towers, no more 25 story ugly slabs!!!! Get off your asses and visit new york or chicago city council. They have tall buildings and there cities are stunning. Sorry about my rant.
 
I totally agree! I have no idea what these people are thinking. It's ok to put up smaller ugly buildings but taller beautiful buildings are out of the question? That's just crazy. After all the really terrible crap they have been approving all these years, it's just depressing. We need real change with this council.
 
Planners just spews shit. They claim the base, middle and top do not meet city criteria. The base I will give them, but the middle includes set-backs and the mechanical is entirely hidden in what appears to be a very attractive crown. So how do these not meet city plans?

The city plan is too vague and subjective and counsel uses it to justify their existence. It is a big tower, no doubt. To say it does not transition with the area is crap. They approved a couple of 500 foot towers just steps away. Does an extra couple hundred feet on this tower really affect the area? On the bigger picture it helps transition the skyline between Yonge and Bay and Yonge and Bloor.

As for traffic impacts. Well that just makes me laugh. Toronto needs people to live downtown. There is going to be traffic. That is the city's problem, not the builders. Is Trump not going to impact traffic where it is?

Time to revise the city plan. It does not leave room for the density requirements of the province.

Lets hope the builder puts up a good fight.
 
It's not the end of the world. I was a bit hesitant to support a mega-tower at this site. Something with the massing of College Park would be more appropriate and create a nice streetwall. For me, the effect on the street is infinitely more important than the height of any tower, and the street is often where Toronto's new developments fail.
 
t is a big tower, no doubt. To say it does not transition with the area is crap. They approved a couple of 500 foot towers just steps away
Click to expand...

And steps away in the other direction are two and three storey buildings. I'd say that's quite the transition considering they don't want Yonge to go highrise.
 
Okay, hands up everyone who actually read the report before launching into hysterics.

Some of these rants are pretty off-putting. I usually expect more from this place.

If you want some background on why the city's planners arrived at the conclusions they did, you can read the Design Criteria for Review of Tall Buildings (PDF). It's an interesting read, even if you don't agree with 100% of its thinking.
 
What idiots we have in our city council, it makes me so mad to see this stupidity. Im pissed that they would refuse this tower. Whats wrong with tall buildings???? Im tierd of this city allowing box or slabs. I think we should let the city know how we feel and make this an election issue!! We want tall point towers, no more 25 story ugly slabs!!!! Get off your asses and visit new york or chicago city council. They have tall buildings and there cities are stunning. Sorry about my rant.
Click to expand...

Er, there are NY/Chi-based architectural critics and observers who'd contend, from built evidence, that a soaring point tower can be just as "ugly" as a 25 story slab. And beyond that, most of what's there already, and even being built already, is more "slab" than "point tower". Even in NY/Chi. And they're better for it. Just as in Toronto, a suave 25 story slab by Clewes might be preferrable to a tacky 50 story point tower by Kirkor.

Be careful, folks. In upholding these "stunning" examples, you may be paradoxically painting yourselves all the more as akin to small-town yokels. And over where Bayview meets 401, we all know what a small-town yokel perception of NYC can lead up to. (And it wouldn't have been any different if NY Towers were twice the height and not nearly as stumpy as they are now.)
 
I wonder if the proposal had been shorter if the other concerns would have been muted?
 
Hmmm...... I detect a bit of hostility towards city council by many forumers here, some of the same who hammered on Stinson for expressing his frustrations.
Yeah, it should not be the job of the council to be art/architecture critics. That "transition" concept is vague and meant to give them power to turn down anything and detering anything taller than the already tallest in an area from being built.
These staffers, like government employees everywhere, are the flunkies that could never make it in the business world and gloat at their sense of power. The rules are vague and arbitrarily enforced on purpose.
 
All of the virulence directed toward council (in this instance) is misplaced.

Council has not rejected this proposal.

This is a staff report from the planning department recommending that council reject it.

Once council rejects it, then go bananas.

42
 
InaneHuman:

Yeah, it should not be the job of the council to be art/architecture critics. That "transition" concept is vague and meant to give them power to turn down anything and detering anything taller than the already tallest in an area from being built.
Click to expand...

Why shouldn't it be? First of all, the nature of the opposition has nothing to do with art/architecture but in built form. Buildings exist in the public realm and it affects the rest of the populace. There is also nothing vague about the whole transition concept, considering the nature of the built form north and south of Gerrard street and the surrounding areas. If the government doesn't wield these powers, one could propose a 100s building in the middle of say Kensington Market and call it appropriate.

These staffers, like government employees everywhere, are the flunkies that could never make it in the business world and gloat at their sense of power. The rules are vague and arbitrarily enforced on purpose.
Click to expand...

Unlike businesses, the governments, as an extension of the populace, are often responsible for dealing with negative outcomes of developments. In addition, in this case the rules (zoning bylaws) are clear, and they would not allow for the building as proposed to be built without rezoning.

AoD
 
Some pretty ridiculous rants by skyscraper geeks who probably never read the report and have very limited understanding of planning policies or rational. I guess tall=better right?

RoCPIII is certainly an interesting proposal, but I would be very wary of jumping on the height bandwagon for fear that this could set a precident on Yonge St that could slowly change the nature of one of Toronto's most energetic streets to make it a bit more like Bay St. For all of the high-rise towers on Bay, it just doesn't compare to Yonge which really is the heart and spine of Toronto.

Tall could work here, but I beleive the planning department should play hardball in this situation and apply pressure in an attempt to refine the proposal and try to extract as many public benifits as possible, while encouraging design excellence.

This isn't the end of the road, it is merely another step in the negotiation process between the city and the applicant.
 
Not everyone is as informed as other members on this board, but everyone is entitled to an opinion.

My issue has nothing to do with height, but that their is no consistency in looking at a building and saying is this hidious block of concrete really what we want on our skyline? The first reason for refusing an applicant's design, should be whether it tries to excel at creating a quality building, with some effort to work with its surrounding buildings, and create street life that opens the building up and makes it apart of the neighbourhood. Too often this is not the case and if it isn't, the applicant should be given the chance to go back and redesign. If they fail again, than give them the boot. Send a clear message that they need to make an effort when proposing a building, and not get away with poor street presence (First Cityplcae buildings, horrible cheap materials (1 King west), or bad street presence (ROCP base).
 
^ Isn't that somewhat covered in this case by the planner's recommendation? I recall reading in the report that they were not happy with the location of the main entrances ('hidden') and recommended that they be moved onto the street instead to open it up more. At least that was my take on it.
 
I agree that the decision making process appears very arbitrary but I also agree that this building probably needs some refinement: the podium is not great, the contributions to the back park are certainly not positive (and most likely negative) and the sucker is really going to stand out at 75 stories at that location.

I agree with Mike: this is a great opportunity to squeeze the developer for public benefits and exceptional (and appropriate) architecture
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top