New rules could limit Building Heights

[jn_12]

That's great for postcards but what does a 300m+ building do to enhance a city that a building half the size can't? At some point, because of how small we are in comparison, a building's height can't be acknowledged from any vantage point but from afar. Tall is tall and you'd have difficulty discerning the height of one building from another when you're amongst them. So I don't buy this idea that height creates "grandeur" since we can't possibly experience it from the ground level. In fact, to prove the point, go on google street view and look up: http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&sou...db72EeRWQaYtrOkFDG61TA&cbp=12,81.13,,0,-11.36 From this vantage point pretty much everything just looks tall, even if Commerce Court and Royal Trust are 50 and 100 metres shorter than First Canadian.

Theterribleone just comes across as a guy who gets off on tall buildings, as though height actually mean anything beyond whether it stands out in a skyline shot.

 

[dt_toronto_geek]

.

 

[Second_in_pie]

I disagree heavily

3 to 5 300m plus will do wonders for the skyline. Asupertall to finish it off would be great.

Do wonders for the skyline? So we should be building our city based on what looks pretty on a postcard? What about being able to stick several times as many 100 m tall buildings far out from downtown instead? It really makes absolutely no difference once you get above 100 m; they're just generic "tall buildings" at that point. And our skyline looks great at it is, with no 300m buildings other than the CN tower.

 

[denfromoakvillemilton]

so you guys want to be just like everyoone esle.

 

[jn_12]

so you guys want to be just like everyoone esle.

huh? You're the one that wants to be like everyone else (you and Ramako want us to be more like Chicago and New York). We're just making a rational argument that very tall buildings do nothing other than make for nice postcards. Can you make a rational argument that goes beyond that? because you haven't yet.

 

[gabe]

Move to Kitchener if you want to look at small scale buildings.

 

[jn_12]

Move to Kitchener if you want to look at small scale buildings.

Thanks peanut gallery for that riveting contribution.

By the way, no one is suggesting that we should just have small scale buildings. We're suggesting that the height proposals in the tall building study are not only realistic but would contribute as much or more than any supertall building would.

 

[denfromoakvillemilton]

huh? You're the one that wants to be like everyone else (you and Ramako want us to be more like Chicago and New York). We're just making a rational argument that very tall buildings do nothing other than make for nice postcards. Can you make a rational argument that goes beyond that? because you haven't yet.

What's not rational about having a great large skyline?

 

[TrickyRicky]

I think most people on this forum have a great appreciation for skyline vistas and canyons. Skylines and tall buildings evoke a sense of expansiveness and charge the air with an exciting sense of possibility in the same fashion as rugged or hilly/mountainous terrain.

But you know what is far more important than a building? What goes in it. Human institutions and endeavours matter, buildings are empty shells.

 

[toto]

I would gladly support a building height limit in the core, if they also rezoned the thousands of acres of strip malls, smart centres and big box retail along our main arteries, especially those in the middle burbs. A minimum of 6-8 storey mixed use buildings. Of course they would have to be built within sidewalk distance of the road, with no surface parking allowed.

 

[brockm]

I would gladly support a building height limit in the core, if they also rezoned the thousands of acres of strip malls, smart centres and big box retail along our main arteries, especially those in the middle burbs. A minimum of 6-8 storey mixed use buildings. Of course they would have to be built within sidewalk distance of the road, with no surface parking allowed.

Height limits are silly. Especially in the core. I believe we should let builders build whatever the market will bear. If there are real costs associated with things like sewage, providing water and transit, then those costs can be assessed to the builder. But placing height limits in the city core simply operates to limit supply of housing and office space in the core, forcing the cost of housing and office space up.

There should be simplified zoning. If a lot is in a high-density zone, then I say the sky should be the limit. The higher the density of the downtown core, the more pressure there will be on transit as driving will become untenable. You want transit? Then let the builders go nuts. The city will be left with no choice. Necessity is the ultimate driver of markets and invention. Limiting supply, pushing population outside the core, simply works against the desire to get people to use transit.

Markets work. Utopias don't exist.

 

[CN Tower]

Height limits are silly. Especially in the core. I believe we should let builders build whatever the market will bear. If there are real costs associated with things like sewage, providing water and transit, then those costs can be assessed to the builder. But placing height limits in the city core simply operates to limit supply of housing and office space in the core, forcing the cost of housing and office space up.

There should be simplified zoning. If a lot is in a high-density zone, then I say the sky should be the limit. The higher the density of the downtown core, the more pressure there will be on transit as driving will become untenable. You want transit? Then let the builders go nuts. The city will be left with no choice. Necessity is the ultimate driver of markets and invention. Limiting supply, pushing population outside the core, simply works against the desire to get people to use transit.

Markets work. Utopias don't exist.

Considering that the city itself only anticipates about 17,000 new residents over the next decade I doubt very much that we are going to ever find ourselves with a shortage of marginal quality condo units in Toronto. Far more likely is that the continued oversupply bubble shortly causes a significant correction in prices and a monster drop in new supply to the point of actual demand.

 

[adma]

I think most people on this forum have a great appreciation for skyline vistas and canyons. Skylines and tall buildings evoke a sense of expansiveness and charge the air with an exciting sense of possibility in the same fashion as rugged or hilly/mountainous terrain.

But you know what is far more important than a building? What goes in it. Human institutions and endeavours matter, buildings are empty shells.

I wonder what's the sign of a healthier urban attitude: looking fondly at Asian skyscraper/supertall metropolii and wondering why Toronto doesn't build more like that, or looking fondly at historic districts a la Old Montreal and wondering why Toronto didn't save more like that...

 

[W. K. Lis]

Basement apartments should be legalized in the GTA... again.

 

[kool maudit]

it's kind of funny how people ordinarily get into this sort of thing through liking skyscrapers, then become urbanists who mock those who are still "at the skyscraper stage." there's room for liking skyscrapers. it's not inherently immature or weird, nor does it have as much to do with penises as some sarcastically imply.