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

Should the Queens Park view corridor be preserved?

  • Yes

    Votes: 168 43.3%
  • No

    Votes: 145 37.4%
  • Don't Know

    Votes: 15 3.9%
  • Don't Care

    Votes: 60 15.5%

  • Total voters
    388
Though if we're speaking of NYC, we mustn't forget the ultimate in "ruined" view corridors, i.e. Pan Am/MetLife looming over Grand Central...

And in Toronto, though not as dramatically, the 'ruined' view corridor up Bay toward Old City Hall with RoCP rearing up behind. BTW, from the 506 streetcar, looking down King's College, One Bedford pokes up behind University College. Not sure if it's visible from street level though.
 
I find it odd that people lay all the blame on ROCP for the compromised view corridor for Old City Hall. The building directly behind OCH (whose name I can't remember) is just as much visible in the view corridor, if not more so. Take a drive down Google Street View:

http://maps.google.ca/maps?hl=en&so...oid=RxwluA3BsELW07lZ1Zm2Uw&cbp=11,350.68,,0,5

ROCP is really only visible until you reach a little bit north of King, but the other building hangs around longer. Which one has "ruined" the view?

That being said, I don't think we need gigantic towers above Queen's Park. There's plenty of other places for them.

And there's one view corridor that is being altered right now, and no one has mentioned it yet: The Bedford is sticking out of the head of University College.
 
Parkdalian:

The effect of what is Trinity Square is visible - the scale of the impact (i.e. replacing the background for the entire clock tower with a low quality structure) is far greater. Incidentally, I think the Google streetview only highlighted the relatively minor nature of the intrusion.

AoD
 
And there's one view corridor that is being altered right now, and no one has mentioned it yet: The Bedford is sticking out of the head of University College.

Actually, walking through Queen's Park for the first time in awhile yesterday I noticed how obtrusive that tower is. Now that it's having the effect it's having I think the argument against any eventual ROM condo has been weakened
 
I mentioned it. Scroll up. ;)

Sorry, I thought I had read through all of the previous discussion.

Getting back to the Avenue Road building (and to respond to AoD) - the problem becomes defining what compromises a view. If you say it is all or nothing - that's pretty easy to argue for. But to say that some buildings compromise a view (the new Avenue Road towers, ROCP) and some don't (Current Four Seasons, Trinity Square) is a bit hand-wavey.

Personally, I don't think this prevents us from saying they shouldn't build these towers here. But it just highlights the very subjective nature of saying what compromises the view and what doesn't.
 
Parkdalian:

Of course it is subjective - city planning (and urban design) is as much an art as it is science. You're right that is handwavey in many ways - personally I favour erring on the side of caution and say it's unacceptable under any circumstances to intrude upon identified landmarks and designated view corridors in certain clearly defined way since once the mistake is done, there is pretty much no way to correct it. Of course others will disagree with that since in that such a policy will conflict with other interests.

AoD
 
Count me in with those who feel that the Bedford looming over UC is the D'oh moment in urban-vista-compromising of the moment, i.e. nobody thought of it, nobody foretold it, etc, but there it is, oopsie, urban planners slipped, etc...
 
Queen's Park vista threatened by condo plan

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...ista-threatened-by-condo-plan/article1403344/

Two towers on the Four Seasons hotel site would dramatically alter one of Toronto's most prized heritage viewscapes

John Lorinc

From Thursday's Globe and Mail
Published on Wednesday, Dec. 16, 2009 11:53PM EST
Last updated on Tuesday, Dec. 22, 2009 2:42AM EST
---------------------------------------------------

Queen's Park may soon be sporting a strange protrusion.

A proposal to replace the Four Seasons Hotel on Avenue Road with 48- and 44-storey condos has drawn howls of outrage from heritage advocates and even the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly because the new towers will poke up from the gables of the building, sullying the silhouette of one of Toronto's best-known landmarks.

“The development is going to have negative impact on the view of the legislative buildings,†Stephen Peters said yesterday, echoing statements he made at a public meeting earlier this fall.

The issue has everything to do with the views looking north on University Avenue toward Queen's Park, an enormously historic part of the downtown that was designed 150 years ago to frame a young province's new seat of government.

The current inhabitants of the legislature seem to have forgotten their history lessons. While provincial bureaucrats flagged the need to protect the heritage vistas around Queen's Park over a year ago, Ontario's Liberal government now appears unwilling to take steps to block the high-rise.

This has left heritage fans stumped and angry.

“It's just stupid,†said architectural preservation expert Catherine Nasmith.

She points out that capitals like Ottawa, Washington and most of Canada's provincial seats of government take steps to ensure that views of legislative buildings aren't compromised by competing development.

Recalling U.S. President Barack Obama's inaugural motorcade to Congress, she asks, “Could there ever be a condo building behind the Capitol? It's inconceivable.â€

The file rests with two ministers: Jim Watson of municipal affairs and housing, and Aileen Carroll, who holds the culture and heritage portfolio.

With the high-rise development application now before the Ontario Municipal Board, the two ministries missed an opportunity earlier this month to seek formal standing at a hearing set for March, citing as an excuse the city's vague policies for protecting heritage landscapes.

Ontario planning law, however, allows the government to trump the decisions of the OMB (a quasi-judicial body that vets municipal planning decisions), but the government rarely exercises that authority.

Ms. Carroll, in an interview yesterday, stressed that her ministry has no intention of getting involved in the hearing: “No, I am not going to seek standing at the OMB.â€

More than a year ago, however, Ms. Carroll's officials wrote to the city with their concerns about the towers' “negative impact†on the legislature's appearance. In response, the city and the province agreed to jointly commission a heritage impact assessment, which was completed last month but has not yet been made public.

The Globe and Mail has obtained a copy of the 104-page report, prepared by Archeological Services Inc. and Carleton University historian Herb Stovel, and delivered to Toronto Planning.

It recommends the city's planning rules be altered to protect historic view corridors, and urges the province to “take every appropriate action to protect the highest level of visual integrity of significant views of the Queen's Park cultural heritage landscape.â€

Ms. Carroll said she was not aware of the study.

Co-author Ron Williamson, an authority on the city's history, points out that the Four Seasons, built in the 1970s, also interfered with the view of the legislature, so repeating the mistake with a considerably higher structure makes little sense.

“Why on Earth would you not take every step you can not to worsen that viewshed if that was the intent of the city fathers?†says Mr. Williamson. “Other cities can get this right. Can't we?â€

But area councillor Kyle Rae says the condos won't be visible from College Street. Further south, he argues, University Avenue views of the legislature are already obscured by visual clutter.

The City of Toronto was a leader in view-corridor protection in the 1970s, forcing developers to respect vistas of historic structures such as St. James Cathedral. But those policies were whittled away, and are little more than discretionary guidelines in the 2006 official plan.

In late 2007, Menkes Developments came forward with the redevelopment plan requiring the demolition of the 31-storey hotel. The original plan, deemed unacceptable by city planners, called for 54- and 48-storey towers.

The fight echoes a recent battle to block a high-rise condo from being built at the south end of the Royal Ontario Museum. As in this case, heritage activists condemned the city and the museum for considering towers that diminish the symbolic importance of Queen's Park.
 
...and furthermore:

Ontario urged to protect Queen's Park from nearby development
Former lieutenant-governor Alexander writes province over proposed towers that critics say would interfere with surrounding vistas

John Lorinc
From Thursday's Globe and Mail
Published on Wednesday, Dec. 23, 2009 10:46PM EST
Last updated on Saturday, Dec. 26, 2009 5:04AM EST
Former lieutenant-governor Lincoln Alexander has strongly urged the Liberal government to protect Queen's Park from a high-rise development that would sully the silhouette of the historical landmark, according to a letter he wrote this month.

The two-page document, addressed to Culture Minister Aileen Carroll and Municipal Affairs Minister Jim Watson, is dated Dec. 3, just days after the provincial government missed an opportunity to seek standing at an Ontario Municipal Board hearing for a pair of condos on the Four Season Hotel site at 21 Avenue Rd., just north of Queen's Park.

Heritage experts and activists have raised alarms that the proposed towers will interfere with historic vistas of the Ontario Legislative Assembly, which was designed by Buffalo architect Richard Waite and completed in 1893. The letter – which characterizes the proposed towers as “a noticeable and negative addition to the skyline” – lends weight to their concerns.

Mr. Alexander currently serves as the chair of the Ontario Heritage Trust, a provincial agency responsible for protecting historic public structures. His office has not made the document public, although opposition critics referred to its existence in questions in the House earlier this month.

“The government needs to be held to account on this,” said Ted Arnott, tourism critic for the Progressive Conservatives.

Mr. Alexander and Mr. Watson declined to comment.

Ms. Carroll was not available for an interview, but her spokeswoman wrote in an e-mail that the minister is “studying the advice provided by the OHT as well as our other partners. As always, we will take this and all advice into consideration.”

Noting that Queen's Park is not protected by any kind of heritage legislation, Mr. Alexander made three key recommendations in his memo: that Ms. Carroll move to designate the building and the “associated landscapes” as cultural heritage properties; that Mr. Watson use his powers under the Planning Act to formally assert a “provincial interest” in the proposed development – a rarely used legal move that allows the government to trump OMB rulings in extraordinary circumstances; and that the provincial government convene a multi-ministry team to work with the City of Toronto to “protect the urban context” of Queen's Park “using all planning, statutory and other mechanisms at our disposal.”

Sources say provincial lawyers were set to intervene in the approvals process at an OMB pre-hearing in early December but were called off after Ms. Carroll failed to give them the go-ahead.

Catherine Nasmith, the former president of the Architectural Conservancy of Ontario, described Mr. Alexander's recommendations as “sound [and] appropriate,” adding that she hopes Ms. Carroll will reconsider. “She still has lots of time to declare a provincial interest, and I hope that reflection over the holidays will change her view.”

A heritage impact assessment study commissioned by the city and the province concluded that high rises would seriously undermine the so-called “viewscape” of the legislature looking north from University Avenue.

The project is a joint venture by Menkes Development and Lifetime Urban Communities. While the most recent formal application proposes 48- and 44-storey towers, the developers are said to be negotiating with the city over height and massing. The planning department is expected to issue a new report on the project in January. The full OMB hearing is scheduled for March.
 

Visual integrity impaired beyond 116 metres?

Frankly, sky blocked by buildings is an appealing urban quality. If I wanted to see the sky, I would have moved to Saskatchewan. Grand avenues look good, but we already have a terminus at this end: the Legislature. If optics are what we're after, it's far more engaging to have imposing structures at the terminus, not sky. This thing should be 350 metres tall if they're going for visual appeal, not the other extreme.

The other end was never going to offer a proper terminus because the road veers off at an angle. That opportunity was lost when they diverted the road rather than letting it continue straight on down to Front.

How is sky a proper terminus for a grand avenue? How bizarre!
 
Last edited:

Back
Top