Toronto Concord Sky | 299m | 85s | Concord Adex | Kohn Pedersen Fox

ProjectEnd said:
Whatever gave you that impression?
Click to expand...

Well it was proposed to city planning almost 3 yrs ago as 2 towers, again the developer submitted new plans of one taller tower, since then it has been revised, gone to the DRP twice with a positive response?

OK, maybe wait another couple more years,
make sure some of those sheds to the south on Yonge street don't get razed, chop it down a bit, ask for more section 37 funds, and just maybe it'll get green stamped..lol
 
Automation Gallery said:
OK, maybe wait another couple more years,
make sure some of those sheds to the south on Yonge street don't get razed, chop it down a bit, ask for more section 37 funds, and just maybe it'll get green stamped..lol
Click to expand...

Sounds like you know how things work in this city! ;) Probably would have gotten an immediate green light if it were a box of 42 to 45 floors...
 
Just because Cresford proposed it doesn't mean they are entirely sold on building this themselves either. It's a lot of floors plus a sizable, unsellable crown.

Well, why would the city reject a box at 42 to 45 floors with much denser developments nearby?

You guys seriously need to get over the evil city doing everything in their power to discourage development. This is not a superhero movie with the city as the antagonist. Developers are asking a helluva lot with their proposals. It's planning's job to do their due diligence that each and everyone of these developments add to their environment. No, skyline or just adding more homeowners/renters doesn't count towards anything.
 
I think there is the impression among a lot of commenters here (myself included) that the planners--along with the design review board--tend to nitpick the most outstanding and visionary projects to death, while giving the aA boxes--along with the G+C /IBI/Kirkor schlock--a free pass nearly every time. This perception may not be backed up by factual evidence, but due to some unique and very high profile projects getting the thumbs down, not to mention the preponderance of 40-50 story glass boxes seemingly stretching to infinity in all directions, the impression persists.
 
Last edited:
Irishmonk said:
I think there is the impression among a lot of commenters here (myself included) that the planners--along with the design review board--tend to nitpick the most outstanding and visionary projects to death, while giving the aA boxes--along with the G+C /IBI/Kirkor schlock--a free pass nearly every time. This perception may not be backed up by factual evidence, but due to some unique and very high profile projects getting the thumbs down, not to mention the preponderance of 40-50 story glass boxes seemingly stretching to infinity in all directions, the impression persists.
Click to expand...
Well said.
 
I agree. The 'powers that be' stick to the guidelines rather than see inspiration. I suppose that is there job. I thought we had a bureaucratic design panel in place as well?
 
Irishmonk said:
I think there is the impression among a lot of commenters here (myself included) that the planners--along with the design review board--tend to nitpick the most outstanding and visionary projects to death, while giving the aA boxes--along with the G+C /IBI/Kirkor schlock--a free pass nearly every time. This perception may not be backed up by factual evidence, but due to some unique and very high profile projects getting the thumbs down, not to mention the preponderance of 40-50 story glass boxes seemingly stretching to infinity in all directions, the impression persists.
Click to expand...

And why wouldn't they? The "visionary" ones tend to be the ones that push the limits (often significantly) of what the guidelines allow. The others fit the planning guidelines so no reason to "nitpick". If you go to the planners with something they would support you have little reason to expect significant problems.
 
Irishmonk said:
I think there is the impression among a lot of commenters here (myself included) that the planners--along with the design review board--tend to nitpick the most outstanding and visionary projects to death, while giving the aA boxes--along with the G+C /IBI/Kirkor schlock--a free pass nearly every time. This perception may not be backed up by factual evidence, but due to some unique and very high profile projects getting the thumbs down, not to mention the preponderance of 40-50 story glass boxes seemingly stretching to infinity in all directions, the impression persists.
Click to expand...

It is not.
 
Then perhaps the guidelines need to change so that the result is more aesthetically pleasing architecture and city building. Toronto is the only city I know of or have personally seen that has such a recent proliferation of identically sized and shaped glass boxes. This is to the detriment of current and future generations. When great design is actively discouraged and repetitive, unchallenging work is rewarded, we have a problem.
 
Irishmonk said:
Then perhaps the guidelines need to change so that the result is more aesthetically pleasing architecture and city building. Toronto is the only city I know of or have personally seen that has such a recent proliferation of identically sized and shaped glass boxes. This is to the detriment of current and future generations. When great design is actively discouraged and repetitive, unchallenging work is rewarded, we have a problem.
Click to expand...
It's been mentioned again and again on UrbanToronto that the City has does not have the power in law to require that projects be "aesthetically pleasing" or at least that they conform to particular qualities of architectural style. The Province would have to create legislation to grant that. How would you word it?

Also, how would you write legislation that created more staggered local skylines, as opposed to the tabletops that we are getting here and there, most notably in the Entertainment District?

42
 
I'd love to see that piece of legislation.. I'm sure it would be practically dancing with knots and tangles. The bureaucracy required to staff and enforce the aesthetic architecture police would doubtless be some weighty juggernaut, too. Happily, it's just not possible to enforce the creation of "tasteful" or "beautiful" or "daring" buildings - because no one can agree on what those terms even mean.
 
interchange42 said:
Also, how would you write legislation that created more staggered local skylines, as opposed to the tabletops that we are getting here and there, most notably in the Entertainment District? 42
Click to expand...

I don't know the answer to this as I have no experience or training in writing legislation or urban design.

But many other prominent cities seem to have figured out how to achieve diversity in their built form. Unless Toronto has some peculiar set of characteristics, alien to any other urban entity in the world, there must be a way to encourage, champion, ensure --if not outright regulate--decent tall building architecture that doesn't immediately dive down to the lowest ebb of the bottom line.

How have Melbourne, Sydney, Vancouver, Calgary, Hong Kong, Bangkok, Philly and a host of other cities managed to avoid--for the most part--the curse of the 50 story grey glass and spandrel box? Maybe our city mandarins should find the answer(s) and seek to mimic others' success.

Or maybe it's all just dumb bad luck on Toronto's part and we should just learn to live with it because nothing can be done.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top