Toronto Union Centre | 298m | 54s | Westbank | Bjarke Ingels Group

Recently proposed in Berlin

Screenshot_20201209-112230_Instagram.jpg

Close enough, isn't it?
 
Last edited:
Part of the issue, not to completely let Planning off the hook, is that they have to evaluate all applications based on a set of fixed criteria. These criteria don't allow for subjective evaluation / interpretation and instead only look at measurable characteristics. So when something 'breaks the rules' but is subjectively better (eg. KING Toronto, Mirvish Gehry, QRC, etc.), the city can't really say 'yeah, but it's better' because they're hamstrung by their own limitations.

The City is also reluctant to change the way they evaluate things differently since even if 'something else' is offered (eg. TIFF facilities at Festival Tower), a precedent is created for others to get the same benefit (height / density) without the cost or effort of that 'something else'. I certainly don't think there's been any issue with the extraordinary growth in the former Entertainment District in the last decade, but the City / Planning still do perceive it as a slight or loss not to be repeated.
 
This is certainly a wide building, but from most directions it's obscured by neighbouring buildings or buildings of similar height, with the exception of the South-Westerly direction, near Roundhouse Park.
I threw together a concept that modifies the existing massing, introducing setback midway up the tower and increasing the overall height to 300 metres. Though the tower width and floorplate are unchanged at the lower levels, I think it gives the appearance of a much slender building (at the expense of SF of course).

50699699887_60f9654bfe_k.jpg
 
The City is also reluctant to change the way they evaluate things differently since even if 'something else' is offered (eg. TIFF facilities at Festival Tower), a precedent is created for others to get the same benefit (height / density) without the cost or effort of that 'something else'. I certainly don't think there's been any issue with the extraordinary growth in the former Entertainment District in the last decade, but the City / Planning still do perceive it as a slight or loss not to be repeated.
Click to expand...

Exactly - great point ProjectEnd!
UD & Planning are always looking to see if a project creates a precedent - typically something they will try to dissuade the developer/design team from creating, where possible through planning changes.
 
steveve said:
This is certainly a wide building, but from most directions it's obscured by neighbouring buildings or buildings of similar height, with the exception of the South-Westerly direction, near Roundhouse Park.
I threw together a concept that modifies the existing massing, introducing setback midway up the tower and increasing the overall height to 300 metres. Though the tower width and floorplate are unchanged at the lower levels, I think it gives the appearance of a much slender building (at the expense of SF of course).

50699699887_60f9654bfe_k.jpg
Click to expand...
Let's go with steveve's revised massing and call it a day.;)
 
ProjectEnd said:
Part of the issue, not to completely let Planning off the hook, is that they have to evaluate all applications based on a set of fixed criteria. These criteria don't allow for subjective evaluation / interpretation and instead only look at measurable characteristics. So when something 'breaks the rules' but is subjectively better (eg. KING Toronto, Mirvish Gehry, QRC, etc.), the city can't really say 'yeah, but it's better' because they're hamstrung by their own limitations.

The City is also reluctant to change the way they evaluate things differently since even if 'something else' is offered (eg. TIFF facilities at Festival Tower), a precedent is created for others to get the same benefit (height / density) without the cost or effort of that 'something else'. I certainly don't think there's been any issue with the extraordinary growth in the former Entertainment District in the last decade, but the City / Planning still do perceive it as a slight or loss not to be repeated.
Click to expand...
I believe we have Official Plan Amendments for situations where the developer's plans don't conform to planning policies. If a development doesn't conform to a policy, their policy amendment can be approved if it still implements the "intent" of the official plan. When you read an OP, the text that isn't shaded or labeled as a policy is the intent that a development needs to conform to in order to do things differently. The challenge is convincing planning or the LPAT.
 
ProjectEnd said:
Nah. At one time, almost every tower was 'too big', 'too tall' or 'too wide' - the only reason you never heard those complaints about the TD Centre was that Planning wanted it and the public wasn't able to make them at the time. It's now considered by many to be our most beautiful. The fights over First Canadian and Scotia Plaza by O&Y and Campeau respectively are well documented. Both of those buildings got built and by and large, most people like them (or are able to passively ignore them at least). This is just another fight over a big building which will get resolved in time, will get built, then will blend in to the rest of them. It's no different.
Click to expand...
There was no city planning when the TD Centre was built. There was zoning, but it solely relied on politics and there was no comprehensive planning.
 
condovo said:
The city's argument against the tower's width isn't "senseless red tape" just because you don't agree with it.
Click to expand...
Then the City should create a BY-Law so developers know what the rules are.
 
Last edited:
daniel_kryz said:
There was no city planning when the TD Centre was built. There was zoning, but it solely relied on politics and there was no comprehensive planning.
Click to expand...
How thin do you want to split hairs here man? Yes, the Planning Committee was established in 1975 "to report [to council] on all planning matters coming within Council's jurisdiction", but to say that "there was no city planning" before that is just false.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top