Midtown Urbanist
Superstar
Is it just me or is that simply the English name written phonetically in cyrillic?
|
|
|
Higher ambitions?
- Thread starter Hanlansboy
- Start date
Is it just me or is that simply the English name written phonetically in cyrillic?
SunriseChampion
Senior Member
That is exactly what that is. Well, almost exactly transcribed. It made me lol.....kind of how learning about the whole "financial centre" mess made me lol. Ostentatious Russians? Never!
TrickyRicky
Senior Member
Mtown,I think you are being generous when you say those Moscow towers are half empty! It's much worse than that!
All over the world notable skyscrapers and super towers are dubious buildings. Someone in another thread mentioned Taipei. If they had been to Taipei 101 for instance they would know that the "occupancy" of that building is dubious. Furthermore it sits on a white elephant of a high-end mall.
I'm not against supertall buildings as an expression of powerful organizations and institutions; however, let's get back to basics and recognize that people matter. Organizations matter. Institutions matter. Putting the building before the people behind it or organizations that require the space is like trying to be a great person by wearing a great hat.
If we talk about higher ambitions we should be talking about people and organizations and companies not the buildings they live and work in. Buildings are the by-product.
On that topic I would say yes Torontonians and Canadians can and should aim higher.
All over the world notable skyscrapers and super towers are dubious buildings. Someone in another thread mentioned Taipei. If they had been to Taipei 101 for instance they would know that the "occupancy" of that building is dubious. Furthermore it sits on a white elephant of a high-end mall.
I'm not against supertall buildings as an expression of powerful organizations and institutions; however, let's get back to basics and recognize that people matter. Organizations matter. Institutions matter. Putting the building before the people behind it or organizations that require the space is like trying to be a great person by wearing a great hat.
If we talk about higher ambitions we should be talking about people and organizations and companies not the buildings they live and work in. Buildings are the by-product.
On that topic I would say yes Torontonians and Canadians can and should aim higher.
Johnny Au
Senior Member
We can try vertical agriculture with the help of hydroponics.
SunriseChampion
Senior Member
Well, I don't know exactly what the vacancies there are and was just using that term for illustrative purposes. However, I think it's obvious just how messed up the situation is when a building that was built with financial services companies in mind hosts a hostel for travelers.
Midtown Urbanist
Superstar
Does anyone think that Toronto's PATH network may be the answer to some of our problems and ambitions?
Take for instance access to our waterfront and how the Gardiner, Lakeshore and the Railway Lands act as a physical barrier preventing a true connection between the waterfront and our downtown. I think the PATH network has huge potential in unlocking that barrier by providing an underground connection to waterfront destinations.
TBH I don't know if underground tunnels beneath downtown is something other cities do, but I am confident it can become a uniquely Torontonian trademark. In addition to more expansion in all directions, I want to see the PATH system expand across the Ryerson campus and up to the underground connections at Yonge-Bloor in the long-term.
Take for instance access to our waterfront and how the Gardiner, Lakeshore and the Railway Lands act as a physical barrier preventing a true connection between the waterfront and our downtown. I think the PATH network has huge potential in unlocking that barrier by providing an underground connection to waterfront destinations.
TBH I don't know if underground tunnels beneath downtown is something other cities do, but I am confident it can become a uniquely Torontonian trademark. In addition to more expansion in all directions, I want to see the PATH system expand across the Ryerson campus and up to the underground connections at Yonge-Bloor in the long-term.
Last edited:
SunriseChampion
Senior Member
Accessing the lake underground? That would just remind me of my Carleton days with the tunnel people living on res who didn't go outside all winter. (The entire campus is connected with underground tunnels)
Midtown Urbanist
Superstar
Not necessarily the lake itself, just alternative routes across the rail corridor and the Gardiner/Lakeshore are needed. Once pedestrians are connected to the other side (without passing through the exceptionally unfriendly pedestrian experience that is Lakeshore) they can be left to their own devices above ground. We did invest a lot of money into the public realm in the waterfront for a reason.
Besides, I believe the rock quality near the waterfront is not actually very good for tunneling, something about the rock squeezing against structures. I suppose though that the PATH just needs to be a protected walkway, not necessarily an underground one. That can give us some alternative options for the waterfront.
As for tunnel people syndrome... We are in a winter climate after all. I see this as an opportunity for the city to overcome that geographic challenge and become a lively and engaging city year round for everyone, not just those that are willing to brave the cold.
Anyway, besides general expansion in all directions, all I am proposing is taking an innovative and creative outlook and vision for our underground PATH system. I was checking on Wikipedia and Toronto does indeed have the biggest underground city in the world. There is huge potential here to turn this valuable infrastructure into something that is truly exceptional and uniquely Torontonian. (What that is exactly, I can't say. But I do hope to get the ball rolling for the right ideas to surface.)
SunriseChampion
Senior Member
Where would you propose such connections be installed?
I'm not opposed to tunnels. I went to all my classes and the gym through the tunnels in both my years living in res at Carleton. There was no way in hell I was trekking back to my dorm from the gym after a sauna session.
I'm not opposed to tunnels. I went to all my classes and the gym through the tunnels in both my years living in res at Carleton. There was no way in hell I was trekking back to my dorm from the gym after a sauna session.
howl
Active Member
As many of you are aware - there is currently a movement in community design circles away from supertall buildings towards more modest buildings. There are a number of arguments against supertalls, some of which are bunk and some of which have merit. One of the arguments that I think has some merit is the economic argument, which is demonstrated in the Moscow example.
The build-it-and-they-will-come philosophy doesn't work with most real estate development. Each market area only has so much demand, for residential space, for office space and for retail space. If the demand isn't there then a supertall building is just going to absorb the entire market for a number of years, sterilizing the whole market. For example, if there is predicted a demand for 1 million sq.ft of new office space over then next ten years it is wiser to build 100,000 sq.ft. per year rather than building 1 million sq.ft. in year one and not building anything for the remaining nine years. Smaller buildings are make your city more resilient to economic changes and are more cost effective.
From an community design point-of-view there is a balance that needs to be maintained between concentrating people within a walkable area and spreading the floor area so out you don't get a few supertalls surrounded by vacant lots. If you're trying to create a vibrant city core a one square mile neighborhood chock full of mid-rise buildings is better than a handful of supertalls surrounded by derelict buildings and vacant lots.
From an architectural and city-pride point-of-view Supertall buildings are cool, but you can't let that overshadow how the city actually works.
The build-it-and-they-will-come philosophy doesn't work with most real estate development. Each market area only has so much demand, for residential space, for office space and for retail space. If the demand isn't there then a supertall building is just going to absorb the entire market for a number of years, sterilizing the whole market. For example, if there is predicted a demand for 1 million sq.ft of new office space over then next ten years it is wiser to build 100,000 sq.ft. per year rather than building 1 million sq.ft. in year one and not building anything for the remaining nine years. Smaller buildings are make your city more resilient to economic changes and are more cost effective.
From an community design point-of-view there is a balance that needs to be maintained between concentrating people within a walkable area and spreading the floor area so out you don't get a few supertalls surrounded by vacant lots. If you're trying to create a vibrant city core a one square mile neighborhood chock full of mid-rise buildings is better than a handful of supertalls surrounded by derelict buildings and vacant lots.
From an architectural and city-pride point-of-view Supertall buildings are cool, but you can't let that overshadow how the city actually works.
Last edited: