yin_yang
Active Member
cripes. Someone else field this.
i don't think we'll be doing that. everyone else here educated? good.
cripes. Someone else field this.
Building the core around a railway station is a typical development pattern all over the world, and is one to be celebrated not condemned.
Uhh, he already posted the link with renderings and everything.April fools? Do you have a direct link?
It won't kill the waterfront views, it'll enhance the waterfront views. There's no reason at all that a bunch of towers that are a kilometre from the shore should dominate view from the water.amazing height and density there but it just kills all the classic waterfront views. Maybe its just the rendering but I'm not getting that great of an overall impression - hopefully it will look better in real life.
There has been master planning for decades, in the form of the Official Plan, Secondary Plans, and urban design guidelines. These are exactly the documents that the city uses when planning reports recommend changes to development applications, like the 16 York proposal. Just curious, what type of development do you think would provide enjoyable urban space? Going by what's been proposed and built so far, it will feel a lot like the financial district, except with more residential and more street retail. Sounds like an improvement to me.In some ways the picture above calls to mind Boston and how the North End felt so cut off from the rest of downtown, giving rise to the 'big dig', and it makes me wonder whether development south of the QEW/railway lands will start to feel cut off in a similar way, and all the more so with further development (when there was nothing there, there was nothing to feel cut off?). I'm not a huge fan of what has been happening in the area and can't help but feel that some master planning should have been in place to deal with these lands, the QEW and the rail corridor, to guide development and what is essentially 'city building' and tie it in all nicely with the Waterfront. What has enfolded, however, is very disheartening, except I suppose for those who love tall buildings, but beyond that there really isn't much else on offer for people who enjoy urban spaces.
Uhh, he already posted the link with renderings and everything.
It's all here: http://www.toronto.ca/union_station/pdf/districtpresentation.pdf
Why can't we tear down everything at King and Bay, dig a meg-pond (something almost as nice the one in Central Park) and install canoe taxis and trout fishing? I think this is a world class move.
I'm curious as to how this will change the 18 York design. That advertising fin on the south side makes no sense now. I hope they just re-design the whole thing--the old design looks cheap beside that smart looking Aa office building. This will be Aa's first office tower, won't it?Found this on the Toronto website:
source: http://www.toronto.ca/union_station/pdf/districtpresentation.pdf
There has been master planning for decades, in the form of the Official Plan, Secondary Plans, and urban design guidelines. These are exactly the documents that the city uses when planning reports recommend changes to development applications, like the 16 York proposal.
Just curious, what type of development do you think would provide enjoyable urban space? Going by what's been proposed and built so far, it will feel a lot like the financial district, except with more residential and more street retail. Sounds like an improvement to me.
But really, densely packed high rises of similar heights don't take away from the urban experience. Midtown Manhattan anyone?