I agree completely. I hate the ridiculous podium + tower combination thatâ€™s so ubiquitous in current developments; I find it to be hideous, and I hate that itâ€™s so apologetic about its density. Buildings should go right up to the limits of their property and be pressed right up against other buildings to use space as efficiently as possible, as was the case in Torontoâ€™s older architecture (or anything in Manhattan, it seems). Itâ€™s ridiculous that the current development rules encourage such wasteful, quasi-suburban gaps between buildings and visually-apologetic towers. If anything, the rules should stipulate the exact opposite: All buildings must be pressed against each other, with no gaps allowed to use space more efficiently.Concerning separation from adjacent towers, why is that such an issue in nowaydays in Toronto? In the past, buildings were built right up against each other with no issue, and it seems like that continues to this day in other cities. I understand the risk of fire spreading from building to building, but I was under the impression that this could be mitigated through use of certain materials. I love the canyon that is created when buildings go from lot line to lot line.
Besides this, if towers need to be a certain distance from the lot line for the sake of windows (which I don't believe is the reason for this practice in Toronto - the tall buildings guideline recommends 10m distance from lot line and never mentions windows) then gradual set backs create a much nicer effect than podium + point tower, in my opinion.
Sorry for the rant. I really hate podium + point towers. 90% of the time they seem awful. Occasionally we get a 1 Bloor, but it seems like the existing formula encourages mediocrity and suburban design.
Yeah...sorry again for the rant. Whoops
Planning for wind mitigation and liveability for pedestrians/cyclists at ground level is "suburban thinking"?There's still a lot of suburban-think when it comes to development and planning in this city. I can't stand these podiums.
Why? 25m is 25m regardless of how high up one goes. That sounds more like personal comfort level with proportions. Toronto is growing into a very big city and there seems to be a segment of the population that wants big city, but medium city proportions/scale. The big city should be allowed to be a big city.25 meters also becomes quite inaquadate for projects like One Yonge which has a bunch of 250+ meter towers.
I definitely don't think planning for pedestrians is suburban thinking, and I understand that there are issues associated with wind tunnels, and that podiums can help in this regard. Out of curiosity though, how do cities like New York and Chicago, with much higher and much flatter street walls prevent excessive winds at ground level? Both cities often have continuous street walls of 20 stories, and wind doesn't seem to be too much of an issue. Is Toronto in a specific geographical location that is subject to stronger winds? If not, why has the city decided on the point tower + podium approach when it seems to be the least aesthetically pleasing (and space efficient) solution?Yeesh, people here want their cake and to it eat too. If you're going to have high density and tall buildings, you'd best have podiums most of the time or you end up with very windy conditions at ground level. I'm not saying it should be the <only> solution, but these things aren't done without good reason. Perhaps the real issue here is that the point-tower-on-podium is overdone (I would argue point towers themselves are used far too often over the midrise typology) and that podiums are so often poorly designed.
Planning for wind mitigation and liveability for pedestrians/cyclists at ground level is "suburban thinking"?
City Staff do not support this application in its current form. The proposed tall building represents over-development, and substantially deviates from the City's Tall Building Guidelines on height and separation distances in ensuring tall buildings fit within their existing and planned context. This report provides preliminary information on the above-noted application and seeks Community Council's direction on further processing of the application.
Should the applicant substantially revise the current proposal, a Final Report and public meeting under the Planning Act is targeted for the last quarter of 2015. The target date assumes the issues raised in this report are satisfactorily resolved, and that any requested information is submitted by the applicant in a timely manner.