Toronto The New Residences of Yorkville Plaza | 92.05m | 31s | Camrost-Felcorp | WZMH COMPLETE

[Automation Gallery]

No reason they couldn't do something interesting with 23 floors. Clewes designed Mozo after all.

Why would any developer in their right of mind demolish a 23 storey building to build something similar in height. Mozo is being build at King and Sherbourne where the price of land per square foot is 1/3 that of the Yorkville area.

 

[adma]

The tale starts in 1969 when the Four Seasons was built. At the time, nothing in the area was supposed to rise above the seven-storey Hazelton Lanes immediately to the north. In fact, the official plan still calls for height restrictions of just 46 metres at Bloor Street and Avenue Road and 18 metres on Yorkville Avenue.

Okay. Got their history mixed up; Hazelton Lanes didn't even exist in 1969, etc...

 

[Automation Gallery]

I wish there was the same concern for the view corridor up Bay St to Old City Hall, which is now 'polluted' by RoCP and, to a lesser extent, by the Bell Canada building.

Theres a whole lot of other buildings between RoCP and Old City Hall.
Dont you think that College to Gerrard on Bay St. is way to far up to be worrying about blocking views of a building that sits down by Queen street.

 

[allabootmatt]

That was my original thought too, and I am generally pretty sceptical of this 'view corridor' business...but RoCP has really, really screwed up the view terminus up Bay to the Old City Hall tower. It sort of pokes out above, off centre.

We rarely notice (appreciate?) that even in a city as generally unconcerned with grand civic gestures as TO that our forebears built quite grand termini to three major streets--Bay, Spadina, and University. I only have a few sacred cows when it comes to development, but one of them is messing with those views, which are spectacular.

 

[greenleaf]

It seems to me that the argument for keeping view impacts is the same argument nimbys offer when a large building comes into their neighbourhood and they complain that their view of, say, the lake is gone.

Well, they blocked someone else's view of the lake when the moved into their new building. It's quite selfish.

I recognize that the city is in the unique position to have some say over views of places like City Hall or Queen's Park. However, I think it's a detriment to city building to prevent buildings to grow in areas where other tall buildings exist and should exist (such as Yorkville or anywhere along a subway line).

For arguments sake, let's say I want a view corridor of the CN tower from St. George Station on Bedford street. So, I think no more tall buildings should be built to block any view of the CN tower from that location. I'm afraid the new Ritz is going to get in the way, so I think we should stop construction of it.

That argument is as absurd as saving the Queen's Park view or City Hall corridors. Let the city grow.

 

[adma]

Despite the fact that a lot of New Yorkers have gotten acclimatized to Pan Am/MetLife over the past half century, it remains a prime case example in mucked-up view corridors.

And re

However, I think it's a detriment to city building to prevent buildings to grow in areas where other tall buildings exist and should exist (such as Yorkville or anywhere along a subway line).

Okay then, by that logic, we ought to "let the city grow" upon this site a couple of blocks south

 

[grey]

That was my original thought too, and I am generally pretty sceptical of this 'view corridor' business...but RoCP has really, really screwed up the view terminus up Bay to the Old City Hall tower. It sort of pokes out above, off centre.

It doesn't help that the top of RoCP is ugly as all hell, which totally spoils the Manhattanesque view up Bay Street.

It seems to me that the argument for keeping view impacts is the same argument nimbys offer when a large building comes into their neighbourhood and they complain that their view of, say, the lake is gone.

Sort of, but this case is unselfishly preservationist, not NIMBY. By that logic, we could call the Ontario Heritage Act, which protects historic buildings from demolition and redevelopment (regardless of area density and appropriateness), a NIMBY piece of legislation.

 

[Tewder]

It seems to me that the argument for keeping view impacts is the same argument nimbys offer when a large building comes into their neighbourhood and they complain that their view of, say, the lake is gone.

The issue isn't always cut and dry but to me it is usually a matter of not being respectful of context.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

There is a huge difference between complaining about one's view (as a matter of pure self interest) and a more civic-minded demand for key landmarks in a city to be free from visual interruption. Quite frankly, they shouldn't even have go as far as having even contemplated this proposal - much less submitting it to the city.

AoD

 

[Edward]

They should save the view.

 

[CityPlaceN1]

Can't they just keep the existing tower and convert it into condos?

 

[Solaris]

There is a huge difference between complaining about one's view (as a matter of pure self interest) and a more civic-minded demand for key landmarks in a city to be free from visual interruption. Quite frankly, they shouldn't even have go as far as having even contemplated this proposal - much less submitting it to the city.

AoD

well composed AoD ... I second that ~

Can't they just keep the existing tower and convert it into condos?

now that's an idea !! they can even refinish the facade to update the look if needed while they are at it ~

 

[grey]

Can't they just keep the existing tower and convert it into condos?

To turn a profit on this piece of land, they'll have to sell a certain amount of square feet, which will end up going vertically. The existing tower probably wouldn't let them come close.

Therefore, they need to demolish it and build bigger towers. Say hypothetically that they break even around 30 storeys (by selling 30 storeys worth of square footage, they will reclaim the millions that they spent to purchase the property, taking into account demolition and new construction). The city and developer would have to come to a compromise over how much profit the developer is willing to cut into by reducing the number of storeys down from 48 (everything between 31 and 48 storeys is profit for the developer).

 

[alklay]

There is a huge difference between complaining about one's view (as a matter of pure self interest) and a more civic-minded demand for key landmarks in a city to be free from visual interruption. Quite frankly, they shouldn't even have go as far as having even contemplated this proposal - much less submitting it to the city.

AoD

I second that ditto. Well put and it should be obvious to most.

 

[greenleaf]

There is a huge difference between complaining about one's view (as a matter of pure self interest) and a more civic-minded demand for key landmarks in a city to be free from visual interruption. Quite frankly, they shouldn't even have go as far as having even contemplated this proposal - much less submitting it to the city.

AoD

That's fair. But who gets to decide what visual interruption is? That's very subjective. At what point should view corridors start and stop? And who decides what a view corridor should be? Elected officials? Interest groups?

For example, Madison, Wisconsin has a law that does not allow any building within the city to be taller than the capital building (a form of view corridor preservation). This has caused sprawl to increase and has pushed office complexes of a higher density outside of city limits. I argue that this preservation of view corridors may give the city more problems than solutions in the long run.

While I see your argument, I'm still not convinced that going down a path of preserving view corridors is good policy.