Toronto Theatre Park | 156.96m | 47s | Lamb Dev Corp | a—A
- Thread starter ProjectEnd
- Start date
isaidso
Senior Member
Doesn't the Entertainment District already have tons of those? Adding more won't create height variation nor would it be an efficient use of pricey real estate. Practically everything proposed or under construction in the ED is 125 - 175 m. That's a bit of a table top developing there and I agree that it ends up looking forced and contrived. Mirvish - Gehry and Oxford would be departures from that.
Last edited:
RC8
Senior Member
I find the area East of Spadina is lacking in 7-20 story buildings.
That said, I'm glad this one will be 47. It's a great design.
That said, I'm glad this one will be 47. It's a great design.
maestro
Senior Member
The Entertainment Disrict is about a dozen towers when you include those built and those expected to be built in the next five years. Future additions are becoming less likely as the lull in condo sales continue. This is at most a peak in the skyline; far from creating a tabletop.
The biggest argument for avoiding a table top skyline is more and more height yet, at the same time, arguments are common for increasing height to towers that are proposed shoter than the surrounding towers which may result in a tabletop skyline. Why are we so driven by height?
The biggest argument for avoiding a table top skyline is more and more height yet, at the same time, arguments are common for increasing height to towers that are proposed shoter than the surrounding towers which may result in a tabletop skyline. Why are we so driven by height?
condovo
Senior Member
^ Because the height-obsessed have no understanding of architecture whatsoever beyond that very simple variable. They don't work in it, they've never studied it, they've never read up on it, aside from message boards like these or, maybe, flipping through the odd magazine.
DtTO
Active Member
^ Yeah...or maybe it has to do with the fact that people tend to encourage height for buildings that are aesthetically pleasing? A perfect example is Theatre Park, which was unfortunately scaled back (to the dismay of many on UT) to roughly the same height as less interesting buildings, like Cinema Tower.
RC8
Senior Member
Except those who complain about height here were cheerleading Aura and Trump.
DtTO
Active Member
I'll be sure to get your approval before I classify something as aesthetically pleasing next time. For the record, Aura looks great where it counts (the top, which is what the increased height has made more prominent from further away), and Trump is probably one of the best looking buildings built in the core in recent times.
Automation Gallery
Superstar
+1
wolfewood
Active Member
In regards to the more tall vs. more short buildings debate, why not both? I feel like a peak built around the Mirvish-Gehry towers wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing aesthetically (this in no way referencing the other concerns involved with those towers, just a pure skyline aesthetic remark) but neither would a few blocky towers like are more common just west of Spadina be unappreciated. Right now the Entertainment District is too homogeneous in design and appearance and just throwing taller point towers into the mix won't be enough. What the area is missing is some bulky, shorter buildings.
dt_toronto_geek
Superstar
Adam Vaughan fights like a rabid dog over tall buildings that don't conform to the official plan. I've heard him mention several times his fights over Shangri-la & Festival tower, in particular.
argus
Active Member
Actually, with respect to Aura, where it counts is at street level because that's where most people will experience that building. The street level isn't all that pretty. As for Trump, it is weak when compared to some of its older neighbours.
I don't think Adam Vaughan was councilor during the approval period for Festival Tower. That tower, and the subsequent OMB decisions from other developers that cited that building as a precedent, is what started the tall tower boom in the ED. Technically speaking, Shangri-La lies outside the King-Spadina planning area.
DtTO
Active Member
You might want to re-read this discussion. RC8 claims that proponents of height are blind to any other factors, including aesthetics. Nobody has said anything about Aura's street level, but I guess those who oppose height often bring arbitrary factors into the equation (shadowing, skyline slope, etc.).
argus
Active Member
My response was to the words "where it counts." As most people will experience that building along the street, I chose to focus on that portion of the building.
anonymous0024
Active Member
Shadowing is hardly an arbitrary factor, and what you said was, and I quote:
No one is complaining about Aura's height, and I don't think any of it's many detractors ever have. When they do complain about it's height, it's in relation to how such a poorly designed building is unfortunately going to be one of our tallest and most visible skyscrapers, but that's completely different from being opposed to it's height, or height in general.
Which is entirely besides the point, as what angus was responding to was your assertion that the top of the building is where it counts, which is absolutely not the case (though that's not to say the top of a tower is not important), rather, what's unequivocally more, and indeed most important, is the ground level, where the building interacts with pedestrians and the street. That is what truly matters most.
And to once again reiterate and make myself abundantly clear, no one is saying that the tower portion of a building should not be aesthetically pleasing or well designed, quite the contrary. Simply that if you think it's the most important aspect of a building, than you would be very mistaken.
For the record though, Aura fails quite splendidly on the ground level, and, whilst I'm not an architect, it's abysmal mediocrity and poor design and execution are incredibly disheartening for such a prominent and tall tower. Were it designed by aA, Core, Raw, S+P, D+S, HP, Teeple, Wallman, [good] Quadrangle, or any of a number of other talented architects that I may be forgetting, I imagine you'd be hard pressed to find anyone complaining about Aura, for it's height or otherwise.
No one is complaining about Aura's height, and I don't think any of it's many detractors ever have. When they do complain about it's height, it's in relation to how such a poorly designed building is unfortunately going to be one of our tallest and most visible skyscrapers, but that's completely different from being opposed to it's height, or height in general.
Which is entirely besides the point, as what angus was responding to was your assertion that the top of the building is where it counts, which is absolutely not the case (though that's not to say the top of a tower is not important), rather, what's unequivocally more, and indeed most important, is the ground level, where the building interacts with pedestrians and the street. That is what truly matters most.
And to once again reiterate and make myself abundantly clear, no one is saying that the tower portion of a building should not be aesthetically pleasing or well designed, quite the contrary. Simply that if you think it's the most important aspect of a building, than you would be very mistaken.
For the record though, Aura fails quite splendidly on the ground level, and, whilst I'm not an architect, it's abysmal mediocrity and poor design and execution are incredibly disheartening for such a prominent and tall tower. Were it designed by aA, Core, Raw, S+P, D+S, HP, Teeple, Wallman, [good] Quadrangle, or any of a number of other talented architects that I may be forgetting, I imagine you'd be hard pressed to find anyone complaining about Aura, for it's height or otherwise.