Toronto St Regis Toronto Hotel and Residences | 281.93m | 58s | JFC Capital | Zeidler

[adma]

And ironically, I think the reason why 33 Yonge is the way it is is contextual--the western edge of the St Lawrence district, built back in the aftermath of Crombie/Sewell-era heightrophobia. So instead of a superscraper, you had the office building answer to "low rise/high density".

That said, I wonder if the structure can accomodate extra floors. Otherwise, to demolish it already seems either overwrought or over-Asian-boomtown a solution...

 

[egotrippin]

Though I said it's a candidate for redevelopment, in my previous post I'd definitely rather not see that happen until all the other lots in the area are developed. Now, adding height is an idea. A re-clad would be nice too, as its cheesy '80s mirrored glass has aged very poorly.

 

[adma]

A re-clad would be nice too, as its cheesy '80s mirrored glass has aged very poorly.

Aesthetically, maybe. But not physically (thinking of plenty of cases out there where even cheesier 80s mirrored class is looking pretty tarnished and nasty)

 

[maestro]

Call me crazy but, one of the obvious sites for a tall tower that no one would ever think of is Lombard Place. I also see it as one of the first to be developed after the current crop of proposals are built out.

 

[junctionist]

I've always found 33 Yonge to be underwhelming. St. Lawrence has so much fine heritage architecture and all around it there are great modern buildings including the Sony Centre and the office towers of the financial district. Then there's that bland and anonymous 33 Yonge. I applaud it's "low height/high density model" next to St. Lawrence but it should have been more distinctive given the amount of space it takes up.

 

[egotrippin]

Aesthetically, maybe. But not physically (thinking of plenty of cases out there where even cheesier 80s mirrored class is looking pretty tarnished and nasty)

Yeah, that's definitely what I was thinking. It's in fine shape, but hasn't aged well aesthetically at all.

And regarding Lombard Place, I've definitely thought of that as a prime site. Same goes for most of FCP's podium space as well. The land could definitely support some more towers.

Anway, I think we've digressed from Trump for quite some time now. Though, who can blame us, it's pretty forgettable.

 

[Red October]

The taller towers in the CBD are already grouped close together..
I remember thinking when the Trump location was first announced that it was too close to Scotia and BA.
We don't need more towers shoved that close together, there's lots of space elsewhere in the CBD that isn't within spitting distance from another tower.

I assume west of FCP would cast shadows over NPS?

 

[dilman]

who gives a shit about NPS, it's a pile of crap

 

[vegeta_skyline]

who gives a shit about NPS, it's a pile of crap

I know, problem is... the one's who control our zoning & shadowing protocols do.

 

[sodapop]

The taller towers in the CBD are already grouped close together..
I remember thinking when the Trump location was first announced that it was too close to Scotia and BA.
We don't need more towers shoved that close together, there's lots of space elsewhere in the CBD that isn't within spitting distance from another tower.

I assume west of FCP would cast shadows over NPS?

i agree, we should have more skyscrapers north of queen, and as far as nps goes, it seems like more of a hastle than anything...i'd like to see a new square built somewhere else and then we could take out nps and there goes the shadowing problem

 

[khris]

You people are crazy. NPS is amazing! It just needs a tuneup. Which it's getting!

Although I am against the idea of not building anything around it for fear of shadows.

 

[khris]

Taken yesterday from NPS.

 

[sodapop]

great photos! its not that i don't like the square as much as its the shadowing thing, i'd rather it had been built somewhere other than the main buiness core

 

[gristle]

You people are crazy. NPS is amazing! It just needs a tuneup. Which it's getting!

I agree. There appears to be a belief that shoddy-looking public spaces is a marker of civic penny-pinching - when in fact it indicates civic cheapness. NPS is supposed to belong to all citizens of the city, yet it was left to deteriorate because of a belief that it somehow was just for councillors or city employees.

There is at least one member of this board who has suggested selling it off or having it developed.

We can then all go off to other countries and marvel at how well-kept civic space are in other parts of the world, and wonder we we can't do the same thing back home.

 

[steveve]

Nice shots khristopher! Toronto looks good in the fall!
I do kinda hate the fact that nathan phillips square is so concerned about these shadows. And it really sucks how the stretch of bay street between queen and dundas is almost levelled because of it. and GOD does city hall look nasty from behind! It's like a giant slab of curved concrete! (at night you don't notice this as much with the lighting). Shadows gonna hurt whatever goes up at the sapphire site which is why it's limited in height.
Maybe Rob Ford can fix that