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
grey said:
Everyone was pretty excited about the CASA elevations iirc. The problem is the number of virtual carbon copies between CASA and this.

If you were to plot a graph of 'urbantoronto satisfaction' versus 'each aA elevation drawing over time,' it would be a steadily downward-sloping curve.
Click to expand...

Fair enough. And I suppose I'm slightly biased since I've always been an unwavering Peter Clewes fan. But again I'd suggest waiting to see a full set of renders. I've seen the renders and there are a number of tweaks that I think really put this building above all the other aA designs to date. As it should, its my understanding that this will be marketed as a quite high end building. So in terms of purely massing your right about this being more of the same but I'd still wait to see the renders before writing this one off.

By the way, for all those who think this is going to destroy the corridor and that the development is completely reckless with respect to its effects on the legislature, consider this. The City's position was that the view that really matters is the view from College Street. They addressed that, hence the significant reductions in height throughout the process. Now for all those who still think that even if that's addressed then the view from say Queen should matter just as much. Well then you can already see the existing four seasons from that view. No one was up and arms about that, in fact I don't think this issue had ever been raised prior to this debate. Even when the existing four seasons was approved 30 or 40 years back there was not one mention in City documents about impacts to the view corridor.

On a more practical level, also consider, the development is two point towers a kilometer away from legislature. There's a reason no one ever noticed the view impacts of the existing four seasons.
 
Architecturefan:

Actually some of us are acutely aware of the existing impact of Four Seasons from other vantage points along University Avenue and consider that to be an error in planning as well. One can't turn back that clock - but that's not to say one should accept that breach as a free for all.

Besides, since you've mentioned the issue of time frame - just how many planning mistakes from THAT era (30, 40 years ago) we wish we had avoided nowadays?

AoD
 
adma said:
Past historic demolitions haven't ever invalidated future rallies.

Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor? Hell, no!
Click to expand...

Since in this Universe the Germans never bombed Pearl Harbor, the Japanese did, I can only assume this was somehow an "in joke" that I don't get.
 
AlvinofDiaspar said:
Architecturefan:

Actually some of us are acutely aware of the existing impact of Four Seasons from other vantage points along University Avenue and consider that to be an error in planning as well. One can't turn back that clock - but that's not to say one should accept that breach as a free for all.

Besides, since you've mentioned the issue of time frame - just how many planning mistakes from THAT era (30, 40 years ago) we wish we had avoided nowadays?

AoD
Click to expand...

Be that as it may, the City had ample opportunity address the problem (if there was one) with Official Plan policies. They didn't and then retroactively tried to impose policies on the applicant. Notwithstanding, the issue was still addressed even though it legally didn't have to be, the height was lowered and the view from college was preserved. That's not really the point though. The point is that the impact would be unoticeable to the average person, much like the existing four seasons.
 
Whether it would be 'unoticeable' or not to the average person is neither here nor there really as many people don't notice heritage buildings or street pavings or much else in the public realm either. We do need to set our sights a little higher than that, no?

Throwing in the towel because of mistakes made in the past strikes me as regressive, not to mention idiotic (the notion, I mean). Besides, the view corridor remains fairly intact why not set a positive precedent here and demonstrate to ourselves that we are a community that cares about something other than pure expediency.
 
Sounds like these two will quite the lookers--I'm predicting some colourful twist to the balconies or spandrel glass. I just wonder if the luxury market will hold up by the time these two hit the market--this fall?

A good name for the pair: Tower One: the Yorkville; Tower Two: The Cumberland.
 
Toronto Star editorial cartoon (May 23):

55585b644a43beb551baf9d12a90.jpeg


http://www.thestar.com/opinion
 
junctionist said:
The idea that we shouldn't care about this view corridor because we've already messed up several other ones is idiotic.
Click to expand...

I agree, a great view corridor is still possible. I'm just not one who finds anything engaging or exhilarating about this one book ended by sky. Build a proper north American and urban bookend to University Avenue. 20-30 buildings are barely visible from south of the Legislature. These buildings at Avenue Road and Bloor need to be 200 m tall at the minimum to create the type of view corridor I moved to this city to see. If I wanted sky, I'd go to Paris or Saskatchewan.

The 'sky police' seem to believe they occupy the moral high ground and solely represent those who care about the aesthetics of the city. The attitude is self-righteous and condescending. People have differing tastes and comfort levels when it comes to height, densities, scale, etc. Desiring a bookend of buildings or sky depends on one's own personal views when it comes to qualities in the built form.
 
Last edited:
If you want new view corridors, there are plenty of opportunities anywhere but here. It's not too much to ask that historic view corridors be preserved. There's nothing self-righteous about it. It's about respect for historic architecture and the ideas of our previous generations of city-builders. The city should evolve with respect for what previous generations achieved, rather than casting those achievements aside.
 
isaidso:

The 'sky police' seem to believe they occupy the moral high ground and solely represent those who care about the aesthetics of the city. The attitude is self-righteous and condescending. People have differing tastes and comfort levels when it comes to height, densities, scale, etc. Desiring a bookend of buildings or sky depends on one's own personal views when it comes to qualities in the built form.
Click to expand...

Indeed. How does your view that there shouldn't be blue sky any less self-righteous and condescending? At least one can argue historically the intent of the siting of the Legislature is such that it commands attention without distraction - can you argue that your preference is the historical intent? What of your arrogance in saying that your wishes actually meant more than those who actually took the care to plan and design what's already there? Is THAT not the arrogance of modern architecture and planning at its most callous?

Furthermore, since you are taking such a fluid view of issues such as height, densities, scale, etc. I am sure you'd have absolutely NO objections whatsoever should an absolute piece of eyesore of your choosing (but of course, such a description is by no means universal, given your understanding of aesthetics) suddenly confronts your place of residence on a permanent basis. I am sure you'd be delighted to have a chance put your own words into reality.

AoD
 
Last edited:
And it isn't like skyscraping New Yorkers haven't have "sky police"--Pan Am was pretty controversial as a skyline-blotter in its day...
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top