News   Dec 20, 2024
UrbanToronto Year-End Poll: Vote on the Best Buildings of 2024, presented by Sapphire Balconies
 1K     5 
News   Dec 20, 2024
UrbanToronto's Social Media Presence Skyrocketed in 2024
 756     2 
News   Dec 20, 2024
Mattamy Homes Records A Year of Accomplishments
 1.4K     0 

Deserving of Height

casaguy

casaguy

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
May 27, 2007
Messages
2,202
Reaction score
2
Location
Toronto
There have been many comments on here regarding Toronto’s apparent aversion to tapering the skyline. I tend to approve of this idea. I’m glad that BMO and Scotia continue to dominate their towering neighbours and I don’t think BAC or Trump are deserving of beating them out. I think the city is correct in keeping it this way to preserve the current “height-lines” in this portion of downtown.

I think the below pic illustrates rather well how height can equal status and ego. Seeing Trump trump them wouldn’t be right.

But if another Trump or BAC wanted to soar much higher in another part of the city then absolutely.

smbankpan2.jpg


And actually, rather than having two towers, shouldn't RBC have the tallest of them all?
 
How would a tower "deserve" or not "deserve" anything? If these developers could have built higher, why shouldn't they have been allowed to do so? Restricting the height of a building on the basis of the name is a little limited.


More likely than not, Trump or BAC would have been restricted in height if built in other locations.
 
I guess what I'm trying to say is that I don't think it would be right for Toronto to allow BAC or Trump to rise above this iconic cluster of towers in Canada's largest city. Since height usually implies power and money, I think the big banks of this nation deserve these status symbols.

A weak argument, I know, but just one of a million odd things that run through my head...
 
While believing that companies ought to build as high as they want, I'm pleased that Trump will not trump our bank towers, simply because I think it's a dated and unfortunate design, and I prefer cities with office towers that are tallest to those where residential has overtaken the office developments. Again though, like casa says, more of a preference than anything else.
 
I don't think we should restrict all development to preserve the Bay/King cluster, just that we should restrict ugly buildings from popping up. I won't get into what makes something ugly or not ugly, far too subjective, but I think we can all agree that neither BAC nor Trump will be the ultimate in sky-scraper design. If someone proposed something like the Hearst Tower (or insert you're favorite skyscraper here), I would have no problem with it eclipsing the bank scrapers, even if it was residential.
 
depending on your definition, RBC could be thought to have 3 towers with the 2 golden towers at Bay/Wellington plus the new RBC Centre under construction. I have often thought about the two original towers stacked on top of each other, but that still only gives you about 65 floors. I see what you mean though as they are the biggest bank they should have the most height. Maybe if they hadnt paid for all that gold plating on the windows...

I sort of guessed wrong about the topic of this threaqd from your title and thought it was open to nominations for buildings which were of good design and deserved to be taller. If that was the case, my nomination would be 1 University. Of course that would throw off the whole peaked skyline strategy, but just merely to see that design increased to 70-80 storey's would be cool regardless of location.


2839573001_004ac15fb9_o.jpg
 
I'm very fond of 1 University, too, even though it is a Brisbin Brook Beynon design. They are also responsible for Metro Hall.
 
I sort of guessed wrong about the topic of this threaqd from your title and thought it was open to nominations for buildings which were of good design and deserved to be taller.
Click to expand...

The old Canada Life Building certainly belongs in that category, with its New York-style setbacks and the weather beacon.

I am against any sort of deliberate "planning" to the Toronto skyline. I really love to watch how Toronto has changed "organically" rather than in an orderly fashion through its high-rise construction boom. Unless some oil sheik plans to build a mile-high tower that is way out of proportions compared to its surrounding context (highly unlike scenario, even with Bazis in town), I don't see how such planning is necessary.
 
Archivist said:
While believing that companies ought to build as high as they want, I'm pleased that Trump will not trump our bank towers, simply because I think it's a dated and unfortunate design...
Click to expand...

The existing towers are all "dated" designs now.
 
Trump's tower's tapering effect has nothing to do with the city. Toronto approved this tower to be the tallest in the country. Poor sales dictated the final height.
 
Hipster Duck said:
Trump is not so much 'dated' as it is cheap and derivative. It is not worthy of being visible for miles around. It is not deserving of height.
Click to expand...

Not "worthy"? No "deserving"? By what standards? And exactly who sets these standards? If you don't like it, that's fine by me; but please don't pretend to have special knowledge as to what is worthy or deserving.
 
Not "worthy"? No "deserving"? By what standards? And exactly who sets these standards? If you don't like it, that's fine by me; but please don't pretend to have special knowledge as to what is worthy or deserving.
Click to expand...

Frankly, Hydrogen, what's your point? I think that it was pretty clear that my statement was subjective critique and not a proclamation of what deserves to be built and where.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top