New rules could limit Building Heights

[Hipster Duck]

^I agree. I love really tall buildings. They add drama to the city. There's no greater 'city moment' than being an unemployed loafer in a high rise financial district and watching as they disgorge their contents (office workers) onto the streets at rush hour. They force you to crane your neck and look at their details. Even if you don't like them and would rather spend your days in a mid-rise ethnic neighbourhood or hipster hangout, they form stunning backdrops as if they were mountain ranges.

 

[Second_in_pie]

^ I agree, but that could still be achieved by having 200 m max skyscrapers. If you build up more urban centres, then the effect could be pretty cool, and you'd still be able to get seas of mid-rise buildings and mid-rise avenues.

 

[Towered]

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.

Or stilettos.

 

[adma]

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.

It's one thing to like skyscrapers; it's another to think of them as the be-all and end-all of urbanity...

 

[timeo]

It's one thing to like skyscrapers; it's another to think of them as the be-all and end-all of urbanity...

Agreed. I would much rather spend the rest of my life in The Beaches, The Annex, Queen West or Cabbagetown than the CBD, Entertainment District or North York Centre. There's a certain spontaneity, dynamism and human-scaled activity that comes with low to medium-rise high-density development in Toronto that doesn't quite get replicated with high-rise buildings. This isn't to say that high-rise buildings are bad or that they in and of themselves lack urbanity, it's just that a city of high-rises isn't necessarily what I think we should be aspiring to. Even when I go to New York or Chicago, the most interesting areas aren't the Loop buildings or the Financial district; it's the areas like Boystown, Lincoln Park, Greenwich Village or SoHo that are the most interesting. They illuminate what a place really is like, how a city and its inhabitants are, and help explain what a people value and cherish. As someone else noted already, tall buildings are nothing but empty shells. It's the human activity that matters most.

 

[Mongo]

It seems that people think that if some buildings, in some part of the city, are allowed to be built without a height limit, then all the 'life' will be drained out of the city. They are falling over themselves in support of the proposed height restrictions, but I confess that I do not follow their logic.

The presence or absence of a height limit will have little to no impact on the vast majority of Toronto, which will remain the low- to mid-rise built environment that so many people here claim to prefer. The areas where a building, taller than the proposed limits, is otherwise likely to be seriously considered, are fairly limited in comparison to all of Toronto -- and I very much doubt that those areas will become soul-less wastelands, this has not happened in Manhattan after all.

The primary impact that these proposed regulations will have on Toronto's visible appearance will be first, an increase in average building height to mid-rise through much of Toronto (good), and second, a lack of very tall buildings anywhere in the city, other than the relative handful already built or under construction (bad). I think that the overall impact will be mixed, with the city moving more toward a Vancouver-type skyline of many somewhat tall but no truly tall buildings.

 

[jn_12]

I actually have no problems with tall buildings if someone wants to build one (though I'll take three 25 storey buildings over one 75 storey anyday), but this idea that such a plan will ruin the city (as was announced by some members on the first page of this thread) is certainly absurd and for some people entirely based on the premise that we need tall buildings to make our city look better in postcards. The fact is that, in Toronto, vibrancy is almost synonymous with the low-rise areas of our city, while the areas where new condos have been built are somewhat sterile and lack energy. For example one only has to look at Queens Quay or the Bay Street corridor where a bunch of big condos have gone up in recent years to see how poorly many of these buildings meet street level. I think that's a fair argument to make.

 

[grey]

Agreed. I would much rather spend the rest of my life in The Beaches, The Annex, Queen West or Cabbagetown than the CBD, Entertainment District or North York Centre. There's a certain spontaneity, dynamism and human-scaled activity that comes with low to medium-rise high-density development in Toronto that doesn't quite get replicated with high-rise buildings. This isn't to say that high-rise buildings are bad or that they in and of themselves lack urbanity, it's just that a city of high-rises isn't necessarily what I think we should be aspiring to. Even when I go to New York or Chicago, the most interesting areas aren't the Loop buildings or the Financial district; it's the areas like Boystown, Lincoln Park, Greenwich Village or SoHo that are the most interesting. They illuminate what a place really is like, how a city and its inhabitants are, and help explain what a people value and cherish. As someone else noted already, tall buildings are nothing but empty shells. It's the human activity that matters most.

Out of curiousity, why did the Entertainment District get lumped in with the CBD and NYCC? It has the characteristics of the interesting neighbourhoods you listed with one of the best supplies of early-century heritage buildings in the city.

Has the small handful of 30 to 40-storey condos already ruined it for humans?

 

[Mongo]

Okay, that's a valid point. But is that enough of a reason to ban buildings over a certain height, all across Toronto?

If you dislike tall buildings, then go ahead and live in a low- or mid-rise area, but why deny other people, who may enjoy living in very tall buildings, the opportunity to do so?

 

[gabe]

I'll take three 25 storey buildings over one 75 storey anyday)

Warning! this image contains extremely tall buildings that some members might find offensive



Uploaded with ImageShack.us

 

[grey]

Warning: This image may offend some huge babies because it does not contain skyscrapers:

 

[jn_12]

^ fantastic!

Mongo: Like I said, I have no problem with tall buildings being built. I would just be worried about creating even more Bay St-esque corridors. When you build at a more human scale, you're more likely to succeed (and it's fair to say that Jane Jacobs would agree with me here).

Warning! this image contains extremely tall buildings that some members might find offensive



Uploaded with ImageShack.us

Once again, thanks peanut gallery. Are there any other dumb comments that you'd like to make since you're on a roll?

I never said I disliked or was offended by tall buildings. I made an absolutely logical argument why condo canyons maybe aren't what we should be trying to achieve. Certainly the amount of density in that photo is admirable (in fact, my own condo is at the forefront of that image) but considering that image includes renderings of a future Toronto, I'm willing to bet that many of those new buildings won't create the vibrancy that we should be in search of. Perhaps I'll be wrong and this new crop will be immensely different from previous booms, but something tells me that probably won't be the case.

 

[timeo]

Out of curiousity, why did the Entertainment District get lumped in with the CBD and NYCC? It has the characteristics of the interesting neighbourhoods you listed with one of the best supplies of early-century heritage buildings in the city.

Has the small handful of 30 to 40-storey condos already ruined it for humans?

I put in the Entertainment District just based off of personal preference; to me, it doesn't quite represent the dynamic and spontaneous Toronto that I know and love. The buildings are pretty fabulous and beautiful though I agree.

Anyways, I'm not sure whether the second sentence was facetious or not, but I don't think the recent condo boom has ruined it for Toronto. For me, part of the charm of Toronto is its really jarring juxtaposition of low-rise areas with huge towers out of nowhere. What I find problematic though, and why I remain a little skeptical of building a city entirely of high-rises, is how these tall buildings haven't really added a whole lot to Toronto in the past decade, aside from these "cool" moments that some other posters have referred to, or the increased density and housing/office supply that is needed to support transit and other urban endeavours. For some reason, buildings like Aura or 1 Bloor East don't quite provide the right space for businesses like Rotate This or Greg's or Salad King, which I think are far more essential, frequently-visited and indicative of Toronto living than the extra 11 metres that people argue Burano wouldn't have had if this new building policy was in place during its construction. Anyways, that may be a bit of a straw man; my point is that I don't think Toronto would be better if everything was super tall, in fact I think it would be worse.

 

[grey]

I share the sentiment, but I think expressing the problem as a dichotomy is wrong, because there's no reason we can't have both. It depends on the established character of the neighbourhood. The Masonic Temple or CHUM-City buildings would be equally as inappropriate on the 1 Bloor East site as 1 Bloor East would be in Queen West, or The Junction .

 

[Mongo]

my point is that I don't think Toronto would be better if everything was super tall, in fact I think it would be worse.

I don't think that anybody is arguing otherwise. But still, there should at least be the opportunity for SOME supertalls to be built, which this policy would render impossible. While there are some very attractive elements in the proposed policies concerning the general built form (although it does seem more than a little authoritarian in demanding very specific design elements in all new buildings in Toronto), I think that it goes much too far in restricting heights in the highest density areas, to levels well below the top heights currently being built or planned.