Toronto 1 Yorkville | 183.18m | 58s | Bazis | Rosario Varacalli
- Thread starter cruzin4u
- Start date
Red October
Senior Member
More interesting design than 90% of what's going up in this city.
And it's not out of scale at all considering it's right near FS and 18 Yorkville. Go forth!
And it's not out of scale at all considering it's right near FS and 18 Yorkville. Go forth!
CN Tower
Banned
Not out of scale? The building across the street is only 30 storeys!
This building should be no bigger. It will cast shadows all over Yorkville. It's a total disaster.
Red October
Senior Member
So we should tabletop any development in the area then? Less than a block over is the Four Seasons which is how many stories? Right, 55.
travis3000
Active Member
Yeah I think this one should have been taller. Like 65 stories minimum.
ushahid
Senior Member
ushahid
Senior Member
you have to sacrifice to get something awesome.
wolfewood
Active Member
Right. Glad you aren't a city planner.
buildup
Senior Member
Its on Yonge Street, less than 2 blocks from Bloor. And there about 4-5 more buildings of similar scale on the drawing boards close by.
wolfewood
Active Member
Not my issue actually. I don't have an issue personally with 1 Yorkville losing height. I see nothing wrong with the city's shadowing policy but I really don't want a debate about that because I don't care nearly enough to actually argue on whether it's appropriate or not. My issue is with someone saying a building should get a certain height because it's awesome. Like I said, I'm glad he isn't a city planner. I'd hate to see a city where awesome wins out over actual daily concerns.
ushahid
Senior Member
^ you mean that good designs should be rejected, cheapened or reduced in height because of shadow concerns. by the way how many people have died because of a building casting shadows on them or anyone got sick or anyone lost money? I will be glad if a building casts shadow on my office or condo. the sun here is so bright and sharp that it causes sunstrokes. two weeks ago I had a sunstroke and broke my camera and had a loss of $1300. anyways my point is that beautiful proposals should not be rejected, cheapened or shortened because of concerns like height and shadows until it affects the infrastructure.
you said you are glad that im not the city planner and then people like you are the first one to complain when ugly looking green glass boxes go up in the sky.
you said you are glad that im not the city planner and then people like you are the first one to complain when ugly looking green glass boxes go up in the sky.
Last edited:
adHominem
Senior Member
No, he means that substandard designs should be improved. This is just a big extruded rectangle with some pippy-poos bolted on the outside, and it interacts poorly with the street and buildings at its base. We all want developers to do better, not for the sake of what looks "cool" on a postcard skyline, but because we live here and we want our home to be better. That means paying more attention to street-level and neighbourhood concerns, and less attention to arbitrary height aspirations.
Sorry to hear about your heatstroke, and your camera. I hope you're feeling better. Wear a hat and carry water!
AlvinofDiaspar
Moderator
ushadid:
If you want to throw around loaded terms like "good design" - it also meant that proposals should be cognizant of the impact it imposes on the surrounding areas. Given their previous attempts (1 Bloor, Emerald Park, etc), I am a little uncertain about that term to describe their offerings - it's more "acceptable, average" than "excellence".
AoD
If you want to throw around loaded terms like "good design" - it also meant that proposals should be cognizant of the impact it imposes on the surrounding areas. Given their previous attempts (1 Bloor, Emerald Park, etc), I am a little uncertain about that term to describe their offerings - it's more "acceptable, average" than "excellence".
AoD
Last edited:
wolfewood
Active Member
And I remember the reason I set you to ignore. Also, the planners involved in deciding height are separate from the ones involved in offering opinions (key here, the developer is still the one who puts up those "ugly looking green glass boxes") so why should I be blaming them again? Seems childish to get angry at the people who decide a tower shouldn't be taller than some random, arbitrary height and blame them for an ugly design.
