News   Jun 25, 2024
10 Storeys Proposed to Float Over Annex Heritage Building
 1.4K     1 
News   Jun 25, 2024
Madison's Alias Ascending with Height Bump into Downtown Skies
 1K     0 
News   Jun 25, 2024
How Toronto Is Responding as the Fastest Growing City in North America
 1.7K     3 

New rules could limit Building Heights

kool maudit said:
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.
Click to expand...

Thank You!!!!
 
grey said:
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 .
Click to expand...

Mongo said:
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.
Click to expand...

Two excellent points. The prevailing criticism against tall buildings that I've heard in this thread is that they don't create human scaled environments; and I think that's more of a criticsm of the individual building's designs themselves than of the entire grouping of "Tall buildings". Tall buildings can be built with very human scaled streetscapes just the same as low and medium density can be anti-pedestrian (sprawl I'm looking at you). To use this as reason to limit building heights seems rather short sighted.
 
Woodbridge_Heights said:
Two excellent points. The prevailing criticism against tall buildings that I've heard in this thread is that they don't create human scaled environments; and I think that's more of a criticsm of the individual building's designs themselves than of the entire grouping of "Tall buildings". Tall buildings can be built with very human scaled streetscapes just the same as low and medium density can be anti-pedestrian (sprawl I'm looking at you). To use this as reason to limit building heights seems rather short sighted.
Click to expand...

That's fair, but at the same time as much as tall buildings can be built with human-scale elements, Toronto really hasn't done a good job on a building-by-building basis of doing so. Off the top of my head there are very few tall buildings that I can think of in this city that contribute positively to the ground-level environment. I think it's just a case that, at least in the downtown, low to mid rise buildings tend to provide far more vibrancy than high-rise do and until Toronto shows it can fix this, I'd rather we avoid building rows of super tall buildings that can ruin entire streets.
 
BlogTO has an article on these newly proposed rules.

http://www.blogto.com/city/2010/10/should_toronto_have_a_maximum_building_height_restriction/

They point out that under these new guidelines Aura and Four Seasons could not have been built at anywhere near their approved height.

If you study some of the proposed regulations found here: http://www.toronto.ca/planning/tallbuildingstudy.htm#projectsummary it appears that they not only want to regulate height but building forms as well. For example the new regulations would decree that every tall building must sit on a podium of no less than 3 stories built out to the property line. Under these regulations the X-Tower could never be built in its current form (or most of the bank towers for that matter):mad: Also colonnades would be "discouraged" under the new rules. I don't know why the city planners have a problem with Colonnades :confused:

If you want to express your opinion about the new rules you can email tallbuildings@toronto.ca.
 
W. K. Lis said:
What we really need is a minimum height rule, so that there will no longer be these single-story single-use buildings sprawling around. No more single-story whatever, surrounding by an asphalt desert.
Click to expand...

that really should happen, i think there should be a 10 storey minimum for new proposals in the core aswell :)
 
maestro said:
This study proposes minimum heights
Click to expand...
really? i didn't read that part i guess. :)

people should understand that they're in toronto, a huge city and the economic capital of canada. i don't know if its just me but i think it might be that the city planners want some geneva type avenue filled city with lowrises and beautiful spacious parks.... our city planners need to know we're not that kind of city really. they should let streets in the core build up. if they're going to make a height limit then make it outside the core at least
 
jn_12 said:
That's fair, but at the same time as much as tall buildings can be built with human-scale elements, Toronto really hasn't done a good job on a building-by-building basis of doing so. Off the top of my head there are very few tall buildings that I can think of in this city that contribute positively to the ground-level environment. I think it's just a case that, at least in the downtown, low to mid rise buildings tend to provide far more vibrancy than high-rise do and until Toronto shows it can fix this, I'd rather we avoid building rows of super tall buildings that can ruin entire streets.
Click to expand...

Still that's a design concern and not a height concern, an ugly building is still ugly at 20 stories or 60 stories. That should be addressed by a design commitee not a height restriction. As Counciller Vaughan pointed out, by specifying maximum heights the city gives no wriggle room to itself with which it can work with developers to improve the design of their proposed buildings by allowing them to build higher.
 
"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 is funny Kool Maudit, that describes me exactly. Except I don't mock people or presume that because my personal progression has moved away from interest in tall buildings that that is what others should do. To put it simply, I think tall buildings are great to admire from far but it would be incongruent for me to champion a built form that I myself don't really want to live or conduct business in or around.

Focusing back on the topic of the thread, I personally do not agree with a hard cap on building heights. As a property owner and urban observer I tend to not be in favour of most limitations on property, including more controversially on this forum, rules that would guide design aesthetics. I haven't really taken a detailed look at the document in question but I think buildings above the planning limit should be allowed but scrutinized on a case-by-case basis.
 
I dont think a height cap makes any sense between East to West, John and Jarvis, North to South Bloor to Waterfront. That being said I hate random 20-30 floor buildings in the suburbs. Id much prefer something more along the lines of 10 floors. Even a UGLY 10 floor building can be over looked. But when they are 20 floors its impossible to miss. PLus more 10 floor buildings would ideally create some density that would make some more sustainable living environments. Where as when we build these 20 floor buildings in the suburbs they are 90% of the time still car oriented. In the perfect world we would have only allowed buildings downtown.
 
I have a project for a planner or an aspiring planning or business student: Do a study that essentially plots number of residential units per building to return on investment in Toronto. Do a second study that essentially plots number of residential units per building to regulatory requirements. Do a third study that essentially plots number of residential units per building to lending requirements.

In all three cases I think you wil find a clear bias against small to medium sized mid-rise buildings, the exact building type that most people and many planners say they want. What is wrong with this picture is that planning instead tries to cap or restrict private enterprise from building what makes the most sense, single family houses and tall buildings. Instead someone should actually look at why small mid-rise buildings are difficult to invest in, meet regulatory requirements and gain financing for. Failure to do so is what rendered documents like the Avenues plan essentially worthless. They resulted in effectively no development because that kind of development makes no sense under present conditions.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top