Theatre Park | 156.96m | 47s | Lamb Development | a—A

DtTO

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Oct 1, 2012
Messages
922
Reaction score
277
Location
CityPlace
Why couldn't height variation involve shorter buildings?

Who's saying that? You? I agreed that Theatre Park should have been taller, because I don't think it's feasible to chop off floors from buildings that have already been built or have already been approved.
 

isaidso

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
May 23, 2007
Messages
1,908
Reaction score
1,842
Why couldn't height variation involve shorter buildings?

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:

maestro

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
7,205
Reaction score
2,127
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?
 

condovo

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Dec 2, 2007
Messages
3,430
Reaction score
5,618
Location
St. Lawrence
^ 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
Member Bio
Joined
Oct 1, 2012
Messages
922
Reaction score
277
Location
CityPlace
^ 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.
 

DtTO

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Oct 1, 2012
Messages
922
Reaction score
277
Location
CityPlace
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.
 

wolfewood

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Sep 4, 2012
Messages
499
Reaction score
314
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
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 24, 2007
Messages
10,947
Reaction score
114
Location
Downtown Toronto
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
Member Bio
Joined
Jul 14, 2013
Messages
483
Reaction score
256
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.

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.

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.

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
Member Bio
Joined
Oct 1, 2012
Messages
922
Reaction score
277
Location
CityPlace
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.

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
Member Bio
Joined
Jul 14, 2013
Messages
483
Reaction score
256
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
Member Bio
Joined
Feb 28, 2010
Messages
295
Reaction score
109
Shadowing is hardly an arbitrary factor, and what you said was, and I quote:

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.

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.
 

Top