Future Canadian Skylines

[ssiguy]

Originally Posted by koops65

309 Cherry St. - 166 metres, 52 floors

http://skyscraperpage.com/cities/?buildingID=113120

I didn't think the city was going to allow any really tall buildings in the Port Lands? I thought it was basically going to only allow up to about 30 stories and nearly all the rest being mid-density 10 to 20 stories?

[koops65]

Originally Posted by isaidso

What about sending it to a 3D printer?

I like the idea, but I think that would cost big bucks...

Originally Posted by ssiguy

I didn't think the city was going to allow any really tall buildings in the Port Lands? I thought it was basically going to only allow up to about 30 stories and nearly all the rest being mid-density 10 to 20 stories?

It's just a proposal, it hasn't been approved. As you said, that tall may not be allowed, and it may be cut down in size... perhaps they are pushing the boundaries to see what they can get away with?

[isaidso]

Originally Posted by koops65

I like the idea, but I think that would cost big bucks...

Get City Hall to pay for it by offering to display it in their building for a year.

[bless-u]

DT TO will soon become a jungle of concrete, glass and steel in which sun light will become rare on street level, and people will live and work constantly under the shadows of super tall condo buildings. Wind tunnel and screen effects will become an issue at some point.

[koops65]

Shadow issues are taken seriously in Toronto, to the point where plenty of towers have been chopped down in size, or outright cancelled, because the tower threw a shadow onto a park or school or a major government building. I don't think that policy will change much...

[caltrane74]

Yonge Street is gonna be dark.

[ScreamingViking]

Originally Posted by isaidso

Get City Hall to pay for it by offering to display it in their building for a year.

Toronto city hall had a model of the core in the lobby, but I haven't been in there in a while. Does it still exist? If so, does it get updated?

[DrNest]

Originally Posted by ScreamingViking

Toronto city hall had a model of the core in the lobby, but I haven't been in there in a while. Does it still exist? If so, does it get updated?

I last went to City Hall last May. The model was there then. I remember thinking it was somewhat out of date, but also pleased that some relatively recent buildings had been added.

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally Posted by bless-u

DT TO will soon become a jungle of concrete, glass and steel in which sun light will become rare on street level, and people will live and work constantly under the shadows of super tall condo buildings. Wind tunnel and screen effects will become an issue at some point.

It already is in areas that have seen a lot of development over the past decade. It's become a concern that has led to upcoming zoning changes.

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally Posted by DrNest

I last went to City Hall last May. The model was there then. I remember thinking it was somewhat out of date, but also pleased that some relatively recent buildings had been added.

I heard they are getting contributions from developers but, it's still woefully out of date. It's just too big for its own good.

Mississauga has a great model. Tons of details.

[GeneralLeeTPHLS]

Oh yea, I heard of Mississauga's model. I'd check it out, but Mississauga's city hall always confuses me as to where everything inside the building....I just leave as soon as I enter.

Yea, shadows are a fairly large concern in terms of local planning in Toronto....and I can understand why to some degree.

[koops65]

The view from Casa Loma:

[IMG][/IMG]

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally Posted by GeneralLeeTPHLS

Oh yea, I heard of Mississauga's model. I'd check it out, but Mississauga's city hall always confuses me as to where everything inside the building....I just leave as soon as I enter.

Yea, shadows are a fairly large concern in terms of local planning in Toronto....and I can understand why to some degree.

Shadowing is of interest almost everywhere. Overall, Toronto is pretty lenient as with everything else. It is only brought up when comes to public spaces. Otherwise, you can build as dense and overpowering as you want even next to the very best in architectural quality since we are one of the few cities that's hasn't built a comprehensive list of our greatest structures.

[GeneralLeeTPHLS]

Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper

Shadowing is of interest almost everywhere. Overall, Toronto is pretty lenient as with everything else. It is only brought up when comes to public spaces. Otherwise, you can build as dense and overpowering as you want even next to the very best in architectural quality since we are one of the few cities that's hasn't built a comprehensive list of our greatest structures.

Yea, I know. Its a pretty basic principle in planning.

[WhipperSnapper]

It was more a general response of my two cents even though I did quote you. How often do we see a proposal revised and how often is shadowing the main reason? Not often in my experience.

[GeneralLeeTPHLS]

Yea, I've noticed that. I know as of late, one of the Bay Adelaide towers had some shadowing issues with a park and their was a similar issue with a tower on Church street (forgot the proposal).

NIMBYism tends to be more of a reason why towers are cut down, though planning can and does cut towers down as well (East United was refused by planning for a request to increase the height by 3 floors recently, but after another request, they were allowed...now the tower will be 24 floors instead of 21)

[isaidso]

Originally Posted by GeneralLeeTPHLS

Yea, shadows are a fairly large concern ....

There aren't enough of them. It's difficult getting shade in most parts of the downtown.

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally Posted by GeneralLeeTPHLS

Yea, I've noticed that. I know as of late, one of the Bay Adelaide towers had some shadowing issues with a park and their was a similar issue with a tower on Church street (forgot the proposal).

NIMBYism tends to be more of a reason why towers are cut down, though planning can and does cut towers down as well (East United was refused by planning for a request to increase the height by 3 floors recently, but after another request, they were allowed...now the tower will be 24 floors instead of 21)

NIMBYism is a non factor as well. Proposals being submitted are simply asking for too much. All parties are aware of each other which is cause for the entire planning process being shifted to negotiations in the shadow of the OMB. This is definitely not a preferred method for achieving great communities.

I'm aware of the East United situation but, I don't know the details.It very well could make sense if we were to delve deeper than simply counting the number of floors. (for example, planning has shown to be quite receptive to more height for a narrower mass ) It very well could be FUBAR through and through. That's the problem with the above system. It's more about the mood at the table than implementing a comprehensive vision. Oh yeah, Council which holds all the power on whether to approve or disapprove is obsessed with contributions over whether the proposal is actually suitable.

[koops65]

The Core:

[IMG][/IMG]

[koops65]

From the other direction:

[IMG][/IMG]