Toronto Pinnacle One Yonge | 345.5m | 105s | Pinnacle | Hariri Pontarini

Peepers said:
That may be but the AGO and OCAD don't define our skyline which was the point that I was making. The point I was making is that the building's that define our skyline - even today - were built / conceived / approved before David Crombie came along with his 45 foot building height limit.

FCP, TD Centre, RBC Plaza, Commerce Court, CN Tower. What would our skyline be without these structures? It would be nothing!
Click to expand...

Uh, you forgot, among other things, Scotia and BCE, which long post-date Crombie.

But, really. You're truly proving it. You're truly a stunted little baby in your architectural and urban judgment. Your testicles never dropped. I mean, what you're presenting in terms of architectural judgment is the kind of infantile doggerel one expects from 10 year old boys who really dig their Sim City and just discovered these neato skyscraper forums. (Kind of befits your support of the Fords, come to think of it.)

May I tell you this, Junior: once you discover, first-hand, the urbanistic "facts of life", you're in for a nasty surprise.
 
fedplanner said:
Haha. My purpose for posting the photos is to encourage Urban Torontoers to show up and speak their mind at public meetings. Far too often it's groups like YQNA that are the only ones that show up, which is a shame because their demographic is not representative of the larger community. (But by no means am I suggesting that NIMBYs don't have a right to be NIMBY's and have their voices heard. I just more YIMBYs were involved in the process, especially if it's good and responsible development.)
Click to expand...


You don't realize that my posting that image was meant to ridicule your motivation behind posting those photos, do you?
 
adma said:
Uh, you forgot, among other things, Scotia and BCE, which long post-date Crombie.

.
Click to expand...

Thats right Scotia and BCE long post-date Crombie. His 45 foot height limit didn't stay in effect forever but he did set back development of this city for at least a decade.
 
adma said:
Uh, you forgot, among other things, Scotia and BCE, which long post-date Crombie.

But, really. You're truly proving it. You're truly a stunted little baby in your architectural and urban judgment. Your testicles never dropped. I mean, what you're presenting in terms of architectural judgment is the kind of infantile doggerel one expects from 10 year old boys who really dig their Sim City and just discovered these neato skyscraper forums. (Kind of befits your support of the Fords, come to think of it.)

May I tell you this, Junior: once you discover, first-hand, the urbanistic "facts of life", you're in for a nasty surprise.
Click to expand...

Stop being such a self-important ass. Your ubiquitous intellectual-narcissism is tiresome and guarantees 90% of your posts fall on deaf ears (mind you probably prefer it that way in an elitist-wank sort of way). "Fanboys" have as much right to post here as industry professionals and entitled armcharm experts without being singled out by your oh so erudite insults (you deserve a warning at minimum). Perhaps it's your "testicles" that haven't dropped, leaving you bitter, alone and inclined to bullying. Respect to Peepers for not taking the bait, but someone needs to give you a slap upside the head.
 
I also like really tall skyscrapers.

It says something about our desire to be the best, and reaching for the sky. I don't think being for massive and tall skyscrapers means you have to be against good urban design. They can work together, and creating compact living, which is sustainable urban development.
 
I must admit that I haven't taken this particular preliminary proposal seriously because the politics have to happen first. I have appreciated that Pontarini is going beyond the absolutely linear in these sketches, and I am so glad about that.

There is precious little information about the exterior materials.

Looking at the render, my gut feeling is that a more varied approach to heights would be desirable. For instance, one 120-storey building, or perhaps higher, and three around the 70-storey mark. This site, foot of Yonge, begs something very eyecatching, and height exceeding all other downtown towers is fine in this locale. The architects and planners must get the ground level stuff perfect, too (echoing CN's comments, to be totally frank about it).
 
Peepers:

The point I was making is that the building's that define our skyline - even today - were built / conceived / approved before David Crombie came along with his 45 foot building height limit.
Click to expand...

Thats right Scotia and BCE long post-date Crombie. His 45 foot height limit didn't stay in effect forever but he did set back development of this city for at least a decade.
Click to expand...

And on what basis would you offer that opinion of the decadal "decline"? How the skyline looked? Really? I don't call St. Lawrence a "setback", for one. And besides, economic conditions have absolutely nothing, nothing to do with anything. Right.

AoD
 
Last edited:
3Dementia said:
Stop being such a self-important ass. Your ubiquitous intellectual-narcissism is tiresome and guarantees 90% of your posts fall on deaf ears (mind you probably prefer it that way in an elitist-wank sort of way). "Fanboys" have as much right to post here as industry professionals and entitled armcharm experts without being singled out by your oh so erudite insults (you deserve a warning at minimum). Perhaps it's your "testicles" that haven't dropped, leaving you bitter, alone and inclined to bullying. Respect to Peepers for not taking the bait, but someone needs to give you a slap upside the head.
Click to expand...

Well, it depends on what kinds of "deaf ears". OTOH I've probably helped to shift the tone of a few threads t/w greater "heritage awareness" (Scientology, 45 Charles, Mirvish/Gehry, maybe going way back to Nathan Phillips Square vs the "tear down the walkways" chorus). So that's a sign that I've, in fact, opened a few critical "live ears" that matter...
 
Lenser said:
+1

Adma, you have more to offer beyond sneering at people. Come on, man.
Click to expand...


Exactly, Adma we need your contributions, you are obviously well versed in city issues, urban growth, architecture etc, but man, present your case with a bit more consideration. The approach is not going to win over people with the negative name calling stuff.
 
Agreed. Adma strikes me as very bright and knowledgeable but he needs to learn that people can't learn from you if you aren't considerate or humane in the way you present your ideas.
 
adma said:
Well, it depends on what kinds of "deaf ears". OTOH I've probably helped to shift the tone of a few threads t/w greater "heritage awareness" (Scientology, 45 Charles, Mirvish/Gehry, maybe going way back to Nathan Phillips Square vs the "tear down the walkways" chorus). So that's a sign that I've, in fact, opened a few critical "live ears" that matter...
Click to expand...

^No argument here, I agree. But for god/vishnu/buddha/mohammed's sake, re-read what you posted to Peepers and ask yourself if that crap is necessary.
 
caltrane74 said:
I also like really tall skyscrapers.
... I don't think being for massive and tall skyscrapers means you have to be against good urban design. They can work together, and creating compact living, which is sustainable urban development.
Click to expand...

I'm not posting this to sound pretentious or to talk down to you, but I honestly want you to re-consider the misunderstanding (which many people have, I'll grant you) that tall buildings / compact apartments = sustainable development. It doesn't necessarily work that way. Lots of people living in downtown Toronto condos live nothing remotely resembling a sustainable lifestyle and the size of your apartment doesn't mean a whole lot at the end of the day if every other part of your life is unsustainable. There are also throngs of architects and planners who question if development based on tall towers can be made sustainable or if it's inherently flawed.

It really grates on my nerves when people put ideas of sustainability down to density. Toronto's downtown core may be relatively dense, but it's far from sustainable. Skyscrapers are not a cure (and can be a problem) when it comes to issues of sustainability. We like to point out the issues with the suburbs and their reliance on cars but downtown cores and denser neighbourhoods are not the environment-friendly utopia it's made out to be.

To say "creating compact living...is sustainable urban development" is a huge oversimplification and misunderstanding of what sustainability is.

Let me reiterate, so I don't get accused of being a NIMBY or what-have-you: I love skyscrapers. They're very exciting and among my favourite things in cities. But let's not confuse density with sustainability and let's not give tall towers credit that they don't deserve.
 
Last edited:
MikeOlivo-Moore said:
Exactly, Adma we need your contributions, you are obviously well versed in city issues, urban growth, architecture etc, but man, present your case with a bit more consideration. The approach is not going to win over people with the negative name calling stuff.
Click to expand...

Exactly, and Adma is going on vacation for a while because of that.

42
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top