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

[Hipster Duck]

^Apart from the Hague, which is provincial, all the examples you cited are straw men. Asian cities couldn't give a damn about preserving their heritage and that brutalist building behind the Massachussets State Capitol dates to a time when Boston didn't give a damn about its heritage, either.

Why should our appreciation of Toronto's skyline be limited to the handful of skyscrapers at the MINT, and why should said appreciation be limited to/dictated by the street level view in the 1.5 km radius around that intersection? Rather than "obscuring" the skyline, the new highrises have merely expanded it. And Toronto has plenty of lowrise areas minutes from the Financial District where the skyline can be fully appreciated. Stand at the Porter ferry terminal; walk along the Bathurst St bridge; take a streetcar ride on Broadview Ave; walk around the open areas at UofT; or just go up a few floors on many of the apartments and condos outside the core. There is no shortage of vantage points in the foreseeable future.

There are certainly a number of places from which to view the main downtown skyline in its entirely, but they are dwindling. Being viewable from a condo tower's balcony or an office tower outside of the core doesn't count because that's private space and the view is only enjoyed by the owner. The numerous lawns of U of T are a great place to view the city, but U of T is a preservationist anomaly in a city where nothing old is sacred and contextual scale means nothing.

 

[MisterF]

Even in that picture of Arc de Triomphe you can clearly see the skyscrapers in La Defense impinging on the view, so even that vista had not been completely protected.

La Defense is well over 3 km from the Arc de Triomphe. That's the distance from Queen's Park to Upper Canada College. Obviously high rises that far away don't have the same impact.

Anyway my point was just that preventing skyscrapers from looming over important buildings at the end of a terminating vista doesn't make a city provincial, as a lot of people on this thread have suggested.

I can't believe I thought of Rome and didn't think of this view...

 

[adma]

^Apart from the Hague, which is provincial, all the examples you cited are straw men. Asian cities couldn't give a damn about preserving their heritage and that brutalist building behind the Massachussets State Capitol dates to a time when Boston didn't give a damn about its heritage, either.

And re cases like Boston, one must remember: just because modern skyline-backdrop elements presently exist doesn't mean they were/are accepted wholeheartedly.

One example thus far unmentioned: New York City Hall...

 

[gabe]

All those cities are national capitals. I'm all for preserving views in a places like Ottawa. Queens park is tiny compared to the palaces in some of those cities

 

[golodhendil]

^Apart from the Hague, which is provincial, all the examples you cited are straw men. Asian cities couldn't give a damn about preserving their heritage and that brutalist building behind the Massachussets State Capitol dates to a time when Boston didn't give a damn about its heritage, either.

First of all, the McCormack Building is not brutalist (not that it should matter except to those who reflexively dismiss Brutalist architecture). More importantly, the 70s was hardly a time when Boston "didn't give a damn about its heritage": by then the urban renewal of West End was already a much loathed event of the past and historic preservation was a movement of rapidly gaining strength, and besides, the almost pristine historic state of much of Boston isn't something that could have been saved only by preservationist sentiments in the past 25 years. It's also rather funny that the seat of the Dutch government and centre of political power in Holland for almost a millennium would be called provincial.

As for being straw men, even disregarding the (false) stereotype that Asian cities don't give a damn about their heritage, the trajectory along which North American cities developed share much more in common with the likes of HK and Singapore, all being relatively modern, 200-250 years old cities, than with the millennia-old cities of Europe whose very essence are their large, lowrise old towns. Rather than preserving the old city in amber and developing a completely new, secondary downtown like most European cities, North American and the pre-20th century modern Asian cities have merely chosen to continuously and dynamically evolve - like those European cities did before the 20th century. As I said, ultimately it's a matter of personal taste, but to me this:

is no less beautiful, dignified and respectful of heritage than a preserved Mediaeval town like Brussels or Prague.

There are certainly a number of places from which to view the main downtown skyline in its entirely, but they are dwindling. Being viewable from a condo tower's balcony or an office tower outside of the core doesn't count because that's private space and the view is only enjoyed by the owner. The numerous lawns of U of T are a great place to view the city, but U of T is a preservationist anomaly in a city where nothing old is sacred and contextual scale means nothing.

You can make any number of "exceptions" and "anomalies" to your assertion, but the fact remains that despite "dwinding" numbers there will remain a significant number of spots and angles well into the forseeable future from which the skyline can be appreciated - not unlike what you explained about Manhattan. There are also many mid-highrises with good vantage that are public/institutional buildings (though not all of them necessarily free in terms of accessibility or security).

La Defense is well over 3 km from the Arc de Triomphe. That's the distance from Queen's Park to Upper Canada College. Obviously high rises that far away don't have the same impact.

Distance doesn't matter if the visual impact is the same.

Anyway my point was just that preventing skyscrapers from looming over important buildings at the end of a terminating vista doesn't make a city provincial, as a lot of people on this thread have suggested.

Nor does not preserving those vistas, as some other people seem to be implying.

I can't believe I thought of Rome and didn't think of this view...

Rome is a 3000 years old city whose number of non-lowrise buildings can be counted on two hands, with very good reasons (sentimental, touristic, and the simple fact that Rome hasn't been the commerical and population centre of Italy for more than a millennium already). St. Peter's is also the spiritual capital of a sixth of the world's people, so I think the situation is just a tiny bit different from Queen's Park.

 

[lordmandeep]

Rome is a 3000 years old city whose number of non-lowrise buildings can be counted on two hands, with very good reasons (sentimental, touristic, and the simple fact that Rome hasn't been the commerical and population centre of Italy for more than a millennium already)

After Rome fell in the 5th century, the city did not even have running water for hundreds of years.


Its rather silly to compare Toronto and Rome or to London and Paris as these places are modern now but were influenced by thousands of years of history.

 

[MisterF]

And then if we are going to start listing cities...

I'm not overly familiar with those cities but it looks like most of them aren't even at the terminus of a vista. So they're not really relevant to this conversation. But yes, at least a couple of those would look better without high rises looming behind them. The one in Tokyo in particular.

All those cities are national capitals. I'm all for preserving views in a places like Ottawa. Queens park is tiny compared to the palaces in some of those cities

Hold on, earlier in this thread people were dismissing Edmonton and Winnipeg as comparisons because they're "small provincial cities". Now you're dismissing the cities I showed because they're not? That's the whole point - they're big cities with lots of development pressure but they've still managed to preserve their important vistas. Something tells me that no matter what comparisons people come up with there will always be an excuse why they don't apply to Toronto.

Distance doesn't matter if the visual impact is the same.

The impact isn't the same. Even still, those high rises at La Defense aren't without their controversy. Another way of looking at is is that the Arc de Triomphe vista is just as spectacular from both directions. Not so for Queen's Park.

Nor does not preserving those vistas, as some other people seem to be implying.

I think you missed the point. The implication was that in major cities, highrises behind their equivalent of Queen's Park are inevitable, and that any city that prevents that is small and provincial. That's clearly not the case.

 

[Automation Gallery]

Like i said a million times before, these buildings are way to far back to create an impact..Queens Park is just north of College where as these structures are being built north of Bloor and east of Avenue road, 100 years from now no one will give two hoots about far away vistas. As far as i see it the MaRS project when complete will have a bigger impact on the so called vista.

 

[golodhendil]

I'm not overly familiar with those cities but it looks like most of them aren't even at the terminus of a vista. So they're not really relevant to this conversation. But yes, at least a couple of those would look better without high rises looming behind them. The one in Tokyo in particular.

All those places were/are either termini of view corridors, or surrounded by large open space for beholding the sight of the legislatures. In a discussion about highrises sticking out from the back of grand architecture and "ruining the view", they are just as relevant, and much more relevant for a discussion about Toronto due to their similar urban layout and built form (except the Hague, which isn't even a highrise-dominant city/core) than the ones you listed (with the qualified exception of Taipei, but especially Rome which you quoted twice).

The impact isn't the same. Even still, those high rises at La Defense aren't without their controversy. Another way of looking at is is that the Arc de Triomphe vista is just as spectacular from both directions. Not so for Queen's Park.

How is having buildings sticking to the side and through the middle of the archway not the same (or, worse) than having a small blob of a building jutting out from the roof of a (even larger) building? Arguably, the Arc was also "designed" to be viewed from inside the old city, and that would be the predominant view for either the Parisians at the time it was built, or for onlookers nowadays. Controversial or not (what isn't?), it happened, and it isn't even a one-off "mistake" like Tour Montparnasse.

I think you missed the point. The implication was that in major cities, highrises behind their equivalent of Queen's Park are inevitable, and that any city that prevents that is small and provincial. That's clearly not the case.

isaidso's point was so obviously wrong (Edmonton and Ottawa are small provincial cities?) that it isn't even worth a response. The point that I was more concerned about, which I addressed, was your assertion that cities allowing highrises to go behind grand public buildings are more provincial and trying to look bigger than they are.

 

[Automation Gallery]

This isnt in the clear yet...one more hurdle to go

Stop Queen's Park area highrises, MPP urges

The Dalton McGuinty government has one last chance to stop tall buildings from popping up in the famously panoramic view of Queen’s Park, NDP MPP Rosario Marchese says.

Marchese’s private member’s bill protecting the vista is set to die when the legislative session ends, and he’s asking McGuinty to either make sure it becomes law or bring in his own version of the legislation.

Without swift action, the clear sky view over the roof line of the pink palace from Queen St. will be altered permanently, he said.

“The only people that can do it are the politicians here in Ontario,†Marchese said.

He acknowledged that his bill might lead to legal action because the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) has already given the green light to build two condo towers, 44- and 48-storeys, at Avenue Rd. and Bloor St.

Catherine Nasmith, of the Architectural Conservancy of Ontario, said generations of Torontonians protected the Queen’s Park vista from looming development, but current municipal and provincial governments have dropped the ball.

“If nothing is done, we can expect permission for more projects like 21 Avenue Rd,†she said. “In not interfering, the government is saying we value private development more than we value the symbol of our democracy.â€

Geoff Kettle, of the Federation of North Toronto Residents’ Associations, said it should be a priority for all Ontarians to protect this important symbol of provincial political power.

A spokesman for Ontario Tourism and Culture Minister Michael Chan said a decision about 21 Avenue Rd. has already been made by the City of Toronto and the OMB, and divisional court has rejected an appeal.

http://www.torontosun.com/news/torontoandgta/2011/04/14/17996501.html

 

[Automation Gallery]

I dont get it, in this article it mentions that 21 Avenue Rd. has been shelfed and up for sale.
So what is the other development.

View of Queen’s Park endangered by condos

Is it the powers to the city that the people of Toronto want, or is it the powers that Adam Vaughan wants. According to the polls regarding, the endangering the view of Queens Park.. 50% of the people couldnt care less.

“We shouldn’t be waiting for the blessed liege to drift down from the rafters of Queen’s Park,” said Mr. Vaughan, who supports protecting the legislature’s silhouette. “The province should give us the powers to do the planning required to build the city the people of Toronto want, period.”

Full article...http://news.nationalpost.com/2011/04/15/view-of-queens-park-endangered-by-condos-activists/

 

[Mongo]

Is it the powers to the city that the people of Toronto want, or is it the powers that Adam Vaughan wants. According to the polls regarding, the endangering the view of Queens Park.. 50% of the people couldnt care less.

That looks like fairly standard political rhetoric to me. Adam Vaughan wants the power to decide what gets built, to be transferred from the provincial OMB to a small group of people including himself, and the wishes of "the people of Toronto" can go hang. Since most Torontonians could not care less about the Queen's Park view corridor, he is obviously disregarding their opinions in this matter.

 

[Architecturefan]

View of Queen’s Park endangered by condos

Is it the powers to the city that the people of Toronto want, or is it the powers that Adam Vaughan wants. According to the polls regarding, the endangering the view of Queens Park.. 50% of the people couldnt care less.

“We shouldn’t be waiting for the blessed liege to drift down from the rafters of Queen’s Park,” said Mr. Vaughan, who supports protecting the legislature’s silhouette. “The province should give us the powers to do the planning required to build the city the people of Toronto want, period.”

Now would probably be a good time to point out that City Council actually voted to approve the development prior to the hearing. The City came onside after several concessions by the developer to address their concerns regarding the view corridor - including reducing the height from 58 and 48 stories (as originally proposed) to 39 and 37 stories, which was the height considered, and approved, at the OMB. So its probably not the best example for Vaughan to use if his point is the City doesn't have the powers it needs to do what it wants with planning.

 

[UrbanOptic]

Interesting that Lifetime Developments is in the process of selling the '21 Avenue Road' development. The recent conversations of maintaining the 1970's style building that is currently the Four Seasons Hotel and the additon of a single tower (Avenue Road/Cumberland Street), clearly indicates that expenditures related to demolition was perhaps one of the contributing factors behind their decision to sell.

 

[caltrane74]

Yeah, bringing down that tower (brick by brick) or (piece by piece) would have been expensive as all hell. -

Knockdown the podium, build one tall point tower beside the old concrete bunker. Makes more sense to me.