Toronto Max Condos | 113.99m | 36s | Tribute | Graziani + Corazza

If the tower's floor plates are the same size (more or less) as the podium, is there actually a podium? I'd say no. That seems to be the case here. Floor plates too big, insufficient separation distances from the adjacent towers. I'd send it back to the drawing board.
 
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
 
Last edited:
10 meters from the property line, but 25 from the adjacent tower.

25 meters also becomes quite inaquadate for projects like One Yonge which has a bunch of 250+ meter towers.
 
TDotTeen said:
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
Click to expand...

I agree completely. I hate the ridiculous podium + tower combination that’s so ubiquitous in current developments; I find it to be hideous, and I hate that it’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 Toronto’s older architecture (or anything in Manhattan, it seems). It’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.
 
There's still a lot of suburban-think when it comes to development and planning in this city. I can't stand these podiums.
 
Hmm, interesting discussion. I wasn't sure what to think about the podiums, since they`re virtually ubiquitous. I simply took it that they`re the new standard, that there was some engineering rationale behind them, rather than merely a design or city-building rationale.

Clearly that`s not the case--as historical examples show--but they`re so common now that I came to believe the reasoning behind them was in fact more substantial. Regardless, I agree--they`re unfortunate, predictable, and often inelegant. I want to meet the building on the street, not meet the boxy, unimaginative box it`s sitting on.

Interesting connections here to wayward, outdated suburban thinking indeed.
 
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.

TheKingEast said:
There's still a lot of suburban-think when it comes to development and planning in this city. I can't stand these podiums.
Click to expand...

Planning for wind mitigation and liveability for pedestrians/cyclists at ground level is "suburban thinking"?
 
innsertnamehere said:
25 meters also becomes quite inaquadate for projects like One Yonge which has a bunch of 250+ meter towers.
Click to expand...

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.

We see it all the time as small cities grow into larger ones. Some welcome it, some resist the change, and others move out to a smaller place. My mum's friends grew up in Oshawa. As it boomed it became too 'big city' for them. Instead of trying to keep Oshawa small they moved to Orono. Toronto is much bigger than Oshawa, but I'm sure the point isn't lost on you.

One Yonge may not be everyone's ideal of scale, height, and proportions, but that's what the other 99.99% of Canada is for. Those that like One Yonge type density don't have too many options. There's One Yonge... and .... I guess parts of Manhattan/Hong Kong?
 
Last edited:
I know you love your shadows, but a 30 floor building can get a fair amount of sunlight on its 25 meter offset side, a 85 floor tower not so much. The angle the sun has to be at to shine on the lower floors is too much. The lower floors of One Yonge will rarely if ever get sunlight if they look inward on the plaza.
 
isaidso - You are dividing things into NIMBY's and YIMBY's, which is extremely black and white. Somewhere in the middle lies something called "urban planning" where a happy medium can be achieved. There's a whole lot of grey area to negotiate, and a lot of us who have concerns about matters of density/liveability/shadowing/wind/infrastructure are also the same people who love urban areas and high-density development.
 
modernizt said:
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"?
Click to expand...

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?

PS. I agree that mid rises are great and should be built more often. Some of my favourite areas in the city - namely the Market district - are primarily mid rise. However there are areas where high rises are appropriate, and I would like to see these areas done right.

PPS. High rise areas could be composed of more ~20 story buildings built in a continuous street wall with the rarer 40/50 story tower to punctuate the skyline, and you would end up with equal or higher density than current and a much more pleasing urban environment (in my opinion of course, but I seem to not be alone on this).
 
http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2015/te/bgrd/backgroundfile-74229.pdf

Preliminary report

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.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top