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
caltrane74 said:
Dane. Your smart.

By the time this is complete. I'll be 50.

good lord. cal at 50

(I hope I'm still good looking)
Click to expand...

You haven't aged since I first saw you in the 70s on your teevee show.

42
 
alklay said:
I would hardly be bothered if the buildings go down in height a bit. One gets the impression that the developer is playing a bit of a game (ask for 58, accept 54 and come off as a good guy).
Click to expand...


But that's unfortunately the way the game is played in Toronto, all too often. It gives the impression that the planning bureaucrats are actually doing something, and they can't be accused of being in the developer's pocket! This little game often substitutes for anything that would look like real planning or good architectural standards.
 
Urban Shocker said:
In this case, as with the ROM condo tower that was proposed a few years ago, the view up University Avenue from south of the Legislature is key. As adma posits, do we want the view of another important civic landmark that was designed to be a view terminus to be wrecked - as the view of the campanile of Old City Hall from Lower Bay Street was when ROCP went up?

No Siree!
Click to expand...

Though what I was positing is that the then-Hyatt Regency was itself the prototypal "view-wrecker". It isn't like the replacements are worse in that regard--sure, they may be taller, but they're also less overweening.

Not that I hate the place; all those angled concrete bays and balconies are done with a certain early-70s-WZMH hotel high style. As wistfully of the period as this...
 
"In this case, as with the ROM condo tower that was proposed a few years ago, the view up University Avenue from south of the Legislature is key. As adma posits, do we want the view of another important civic landmark that was designed to be a view terminus to be wrecked - as the view of the campanile of Old City Hall from Lower Bay Street was when ROCP went up?"

Is the old city hall at Queen & Bay (NE corner)? If so, its absurd to say that a tall development about 10 blocks north should be an issue.

The developer at 21 Avenue should hang tough over heights as the city would do anything to see the base of the current hotel erased.In most of the south side of Yorkville is crap, especially towards Avenue.
 
buildup:

I think what he meant is the potential of this building to affect the view terminus of the Ontario Legislature up University Avenue - a rather legitimate concern, given the rather nasty effect from RoCP.

AoD
 
buildup: Stand on the south side of Queens Quay at Bay Street and look north - you will see ROCP aligned directly behind the campanile of Old City Hall. The tip of the campanile spire barely reaches the top of ROCP behind it, and ROCP appears about three times wider. The condo tower completely overpowers the view of a major civic landmark that was specifically designed to be seen from the south standing out against the skyline at the intersection of Bay and Queen. Even allowing for the fact that landfill has been added, the historic view of the tower from just south of Front Street where the lake began in the 1890's is still compromised.

I think that's the sort of thing we should guard against with this new development vis-a-vis the Legislature.
 
Urban Shocker said:
buildup: Stand on the south side of Queens Quay at Bay Street and look north - you will see ROCP aligned directly behind the campanile of Old City Hall. The tip of the campanile spire barely reaches the top of ROCP behind it, and ROCP appears about three times wider. The condo tower completely overpowers the view of a major civic landmark that was specifically designed to be seen from the south standing out against the skyline at the intersection of Bay and Queen. Even allowing for the fact that landfill has been added, the historic view of the tower from just south of Front Street where the lake began in the 1890's is still compromised.

I think that's the sort of thing we should guard against with this new development vis-a-vis the Legislature.
Click to expand...

Yes, very true. I like the cotrast with 20 Queen St West, when the bell tower is seen from the west. But RoCP, especially its lid, is lousy. The sad thing is that it would not have been any more costly for the developer to do a proper crown.
 
And it certainly would have been easy for planners to anticipate the visual effect of a tower of that height in that location on what some of us consider a heritage view, regardless of the design.
 
According to Adam Vaughan's website regarding a community meeting for this project:

"The planning meeting on 21 Avenue Road has been cancelled as the developer has withdrawn this application. When a revised application is submitted, another planning meeting will be scheduled."
 
funny... thought this one was a bit too hyped.

with the risk of sounding like an idiot, I couldnt care about condo towers ruining the backdrop to these historic views. Old City Hall is so completely underwhelming looking up Bay that its almost embarrassing. Who cares if taller buildings are behind it? Certainly you wouldnt want to put anythin infront of it, which is guaranteed by the little zag in Bay St. As for this proposed and now withdrawn project... I think Queens Park would look great with a forest of highrises to the north! Again because of it underwhelming height of only 5 floors it seems ridiculous to preserve unlimited open sky as a backdrop. As with Old City Hall, the full frontal view is protected because of its location, centered on University Ave. No worries. These are both completely different situations than the MetLife (former Pan Am) building in NYC....
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top