Toronto Chelsea Green (was 33 Gerrard) | 297.25m | 90s | Great Eagle | a—A

grey said:
Also, you're not the first person to draw comparisons between Toronto and Barcelona or Paris. Here's an insightful article that you might learn something from: http://torontoist.com/2015/06/public-works-what-toronto-can-learn-from-barcelona
Click to expand...

I do take issues with the Torontoist article on Barcelona - the learnings they have drawn are rather peripheral - "What sets Barcelona apart is that it does a lot of seemingly small things very well" - okay, wi-fi, bike lanes, subway signage and whatnot, really? Is that what made Barcelona "great"? Not the unique, versatile blocks in Eixample, the human scaled urban form? The generally high and distributed density? It doesn't acknowledge the fundamentally different path that the city had taken, and one'd hope the learnings are deeper than that. Not to say that one need to slavishly follow, but theirs is an example that kind of poke eyes at our ultra-density by 2s neighbourhood model. The closest thing we have to it is probably St. Lawrence (and more loosely, the waterfront developments)

And of course - the answer is offered in the comments section:

The Places to Grow Act doesn't mandate high-rises in downtown areas. It does mandate that a high percentage of growth be within existign urban boundaries. In practical terms, that means either small pockets of high-rises, or extensive amounts of mid-rises.... and which do you think is easier for developers, planners, and politicians to make happen?
Click to expand...

http://torontoist.com/2015/06/public-works-what-toronto-can-learn-from-barcelona/#comment-2058169323

AoD
 
Last edited:
ksun said:
But we are comparing Toronto with Paris, not York Region with Vitry-sur-Seine. Looking for such excuses does no good. In addition, Mississauga and Vaughan etc look gross with their wide roads and all the double garage facing the streets like a parade. Nothing is worse than that kind of build form. And I am not sure whether it is a good thing that Toronto's middle and upper class would rather live in the outskirts rather in central city.
Click to expand...

Having visited by in some depth Heliopolis, which is a favela in Sao Paulo, Khayelitsa, the black township outside Capetown, and a variety of other struggling cities of Africa and Asia, I can say that there are things far worse than Mississauga and Vaughan and their built form. Having had the immense privilege of being hosted by people giving their lives to help the inhabitants of those challenging places, I have no patience with your hyperbole. If I wrote what I think, I would be disciplined by our Mods, and rightly so.

And I stand by the comparison I have made with respect to today's experience.
 
67Cup said:
Having visited by in some depth Heliopolis, which is a favela in Sao Paulo, Khayelitsa, the black township outside Capetown, and a variety of other struggling cities of Africa and Asia, I can say that there things far worse than Mississauga and Vaughan and their built form. Having had the immense privilege of being hosted by people giving their lives to help the inhabitants of those challenging places, I have no patience with your hyperbole. If I wrote what I think, I would be disciplined by our Mods, and rightly so.

And I stand by the comparison I have made with respect to today's experience.
Click to expand...

Of course. I was only comparing Toronto with similarly wealthy countries. Anyway, their "urban layout" is appalling to me. I swear to myself I will never set my foot on either on those places again (I literally told my friends who live there I will never go again because how much I hate their cities).
 
AlvinofDiaspar said:
I do take issues with the Torontoist article on Barcelona - the learnings they have drawn are rather peripheral - "What sets Barcelona apart is that it does a lot of seemingly small things very well" - okay, wi-fi, bike lanes, subway signage and whatnot, really? Is that what made Barcelona "great"? Not the unique, versatile blocks in Eixample, the human scaled urban form? The generally high and distributed density? It doesn't acknowledge the fundamentally different path that the city had taken, and one'd hope the learnings are deeper than that. Not to say that one need to slavishly follow, but theirs' is an example that kind of poke eyes at our ultra-density by 2s neighbourhood model. The closest thing we have to it is probably St. Lawrence (and more loosely, the waterfront developments)

AoD
Click to expand...
The article does mention its human-scaled boulevards a little further down, though granted, it gives the same amount of attention to "wifi". I picked this briefly-skimmed article because it contains literally all of ksun's usual talking points that everyone already knows about, rendering everything he posts entirely redundant and moot forever.

ksun said:
Of course. I was only comparing Toronto with similarly wealthy countries. Anyway, their "urban layout" is appalling to me. I swear to myself I will never set my foot on either on those places again (I literally told my friends who live there I will never go again because how much I hate their cities).
Click to expand...
You sound like an absolute blast to hang out with.
 
grey said:
it contains literally all of ksun's usual talking points that everyone already knows about, rendering everything he posts entirely redundant and moot forever.
Click to expand...

Like.jpg
 

Attachments

  • Like.jpg
    Like.jpg
    7.6 KB · Views: 2,177
Ramako said:
It's a mystery to me why members of the DRP apparently had a issues with the height of this one.
Click to expand...

Inevitably there is someone in every committee or panel who isn't well prepared, has nothing to contribute, yet cannot remain silent. So the stock comment is inevitably "but the height! The height!!"

Or "the shadow" if that objection has not been taken already.
 
Ramako said:
It's a mystery to me why members of the DRP apparently had a issues with the height of this one.
Click to expand...


It's 3 very tall towers. Should height not be a concern as it relates to density, shadowing and, overall impact? Feels more gray than a black or white argument.
 
maestro said:
It's 3 very tall towers. Should height not be a concern as it relates to density, shadowing and, overall impact? Feels more gray than a black or white argument.
Click to expand...

You say "It's 3 very tall towers" as though it should be followed by "res ipsa loquitur". If density is the concern, then say that's the concern. If shadowing is the concern, then say that's the concern. Of course, these things can be related to height but not necessarily so, and in some cases they can be alleviated by ultimately increasing the height. Now if this were 250 metres or so proposed at Bloor & Spadina, I could understand why height, in and of itself, might be an issue, but this is downtown and right next door to a 272 metre tower. It just seems like a such a perfunctory, obligatory and lazy concern to raise.
 
Where's the third tower in that rendering? Hiding behind one of the two? The other mass is Aura, of course.

Anyway, these don't look bad - pretty nice compared to that early rendering of 50 Bloor West, that slovenly stacked affair resembling a dog's breakfast. But still, these don't seem terribly refined... they casually use the architectural lexicon of the day but it feels a bit slapdash to me.
 
Ramako said:
You say "It's 3 very tall towers" as though it should be followed by "res ipsa loquitur". If density is the concern, then say that's the concern. If shadowing is the concern, then say that's the concern. Of course, these things can be related to height but not necessarily so, and in some cases they can be alleviated by ultimately increasing the height. Now if this were 250 metres or so proposed at Bloor & Spadina, I could understand why height, in and of itself, might be an issue, but this is downtown and right next door to a 272 metre tower. It just seems like a such a perfunctory, obligatory and lazy concern to raise.
Click to expand...

Hey, I do agree however, you see how shadowing is easily dismissed and density isn't really appreciated on a forum dedicated to urban affairs. Height leaves a lasting impression. It's just a measurement. It takes 30 seconds to formulate an opinion. It is the apex of laziness.

It's also an advisory panel. It's a delicate balance to keep the party's interested. Most of their ideas tend to side on minor or cosmetic. I wish they would speak their mind more often instead innuendos.

Me? Two taller towers would be better than 3 and at Aura's density.
 
Agreed. Rather than three towers, make it two and give 'em additional height. Fat chance it'll go that way, but that's my vote.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top