Toronto Theatre Park | 156.96m | 47s | Lamb Dev Corp | a—A

The backside:

attachment.php
 

Attachments

  • IMG_2887.JPG
    IMG_2887.JPG
    955.2 KB · Views: 1,631
Too bad it wasn't built at 50s, as was originally intended. Especially considering how many buildings are proposed for the immediate area that will dwarf it.
 
Three more storeys wouldn't make much of a difference though on the skyline from a distance. To make an impression from a distance, they would have needed another 20 storeys, and they never would have been allowed that either. When you're close by, especially in the park around Metro Hall, it does look great, or at least promises to as the last details are coming together.

42
 
Three more storeys wouldn't make much of a difference though on the skyline from a distance. To make an impression from a distance, they would have needed another 20 storeys, and they never would have been allowed that either. When you're close by, especially in the park around Metro Hall, it does look great, or at least promises to as the last details are coming together.

42

It wouldn't have made much of a difference. It just seems silly, in retrospect, that it had 3s chopped off (like the building would have been too overbearing built at the height...). Decisions like that are so farcical. What harm would have been done to have let the building go ahead at 50s? At that height, what difference does it really make to remove 3 floors?
 
This one didn't have anything to do with shadowing and sunlight. It had to do with not going taller than the TIFF Bell Lightbox, which the City made the de facto cut off point for every building in the neighbourhood (see Cinema Tower, Pinnacle on Adelaide, etc.). Unfortunately, a whole pile of buildings ended up at virtually the same height (which does next to nothing for a skyline).

42
 
This one didn't have anything to do with shadowing and sunlight. It had to do with not going taller than the TIFF Bell Lightbox, which the City made the de facto cut off point for every building in the neighbourhood (see Cinema Tower, Pinnacle on Adelaide, etc.). Unfortunately, a whole pile of buildings ended up at virtually the same height (which does next to nothing for a skyline).

42

Sometimes the city really makes a mess of things. That cluster of towers (cinema, pinnacle and Bell) is so unfortunate.
 
This one didn't have anything to do with shadowing and sunlight. It had to do with not going taller than the TIFF Bell Lightbox, which the City made the de facto cut off point for every building in the neighbourhood (see Cinema Tower, Pinnacle on Adelaide, etc.). Unfortunately, a whole pile of buildings ended up at virtually the same height (which does next to nothing for a skyline).

42

So thats why all those buildings are the same height? Dumb.
 
What harm would have been done to have let the building go ahead at 50s? At that height, what difference does it really make to remove 3 floors

You have to cut it off somewhere. If 50 is fine what about 53, or 56...?
 
This one didn't have anything to do with shadowing and sunlight. It had to do with not going taller than the TIFF Bell Lightbox, which the City made the de facto cut off point for every building in the neighbourhood (see Cinema Tower, Pinnacle on Adelaide, etc.). Unfortunately, a whole pile of buildings ended up at virtually the same height (which does next to nothing for a skyline).

42

On the other hand, no one is complaining about Cabbagetown Victorians being all the same height. Maybe the skyscrapers here will become a heritage district someday. (different era, same principle). =p
 
You have to cut it off somewhere. If 50 is fine what about 53, or 56...?

Lamb only ever wanted 50s here, however. For the City to say, no, but we'll allow 47s, is ridiculous. The City could have cut it off at 50s instead 47s. Anyway, I don't want this to drag on. What's done is done.
 

Back
Top