Toronto 30 Scollard | 231.4m | 61s | Constantine Enterprises | CAL

[Northern Light]

...as with the former though, I am having hard time believing that the shadow of this proposal misses it. Let alone the respective school above that.

You know my guesses are typically pretty good, right? So I just looked at the shadow studies. This one doesn't touch Ketchum at all.

The key is the equinoxes (March and September) though in this case, it does touch it in June either.

I'm not going to post all the images, but here is September:

Red is the shadow from this proposal, the Parcle marked A is Ketchum:

And so on.

 

[UtakataNoAnnex]

I apologize to you Northern Light-san for making you do all this work. But I do need to see it from reliable scientific sources (as with the one you have exampled above) before I actually believe it...

...shadows are a tricky thing here when taken into consideration, as your are probably very well aware of. It's pretty clear though that there is an issue with Belmont House in that regards from those same shadow maps. And less so with The Florian and The Yorkville respectively. So 1:0 for The City on that one I guess. >.<

 

[xy3]

I was being some what facetious. My point was that Jesse Ketchum Park is in the area, of this project, and seeing The One's height increase got shot down because of the park, I can't imagine a new building being closer is okay with the NIMBY's.

I wonder if anyone will die if shadows are cast on the park.

 

[Northern Light]

I wonder if anyone will die if shadows are cast on the park.

Way too much. Wow!

Maybe I'll just walk away from UT and not report anything anymore. That will save so many such heartbreak.

I'm finding people's short-sighted, facetious, over-the-top, intellectually unsound and tasteless rhetoric a bit too much.

I come here to enjoy a thoughtful exchange of views, not listen to endless tired tropes that suggest a lack of understanding and nuance.

*****

No one will die if this proposal doesn't go ahead either. No one will go to hospital, no one will suffer at all in point of fact, unless depriving the developer of a few million in profits counts. No homeless people will be housed in this tower either, nor will rent become any more affordable as a result of its construction. Height fan-boy'ism is not a thoughtful position.

On the other hand, all of those whose arguments that amount to " planning should never say no to anything ever, who cares if there's a forest of 200-storey buildings and no one can see the sun" are so utterly, and infuriatingly ridiculous as to exhaust the patience of people more patient than Gandhi, and that would not be me.

I don't get angry often, but this thread is really making me reconsider my contributions here at UT.

Anyone wants to debate? I'm a huge believer in freedom of speech and varied opinion; but please make it informed and thoughtful.

One final note here, again.........height is the least of this proposal's problems and shadowing too.

 

[C-mac]

Way too much. Wow!

Maybe I'll just walk away from UT and not report anything anymore. That will save so many such heartbreak.

I'm finding people's short-sighted, facetious, over-the-top, intellectually unsound and tasteless rhetoric a bit too much.

I come here to enjoy a thoughtful exchange of views, not listen to endless tired tropes that suggest a lack of understanding and nuance.

*****

No one will die if this proposal doesn't go ahead either. No one will go to hospital, no one will suffer at all in point of fact, unless depriving the developer of a few million in profits counts. No homeless people will be housed in this tower either, nor will rent become any more affordable as a result of its construction. Height fan-boy'ism is not a thoughtful position.

On the other hand, all of those whose arguments that amount to " planning should never say no to anything ever, who cares if there's a forest of 200-storey buildings and no one can see the sun" are so utterly, and infuriatingly ridiculous as to exhaust the patience of people more patient than Gandhi, and that would not be me.

I don't get angry often, but this thread is really making me reconsider my contributions here at UT.

Anyone wants to debate? I'm a huge believer in freedom of speech and varied opinion; but please make it informed and thoughtful.

One final note here, again.........height is the least of this proposal's problems and shadowing too.

Ohhhh come on man....

As much as we appreciate your input, in this case you simply gave info that would have come to light regardless. The same argument would have broke out at some point once someone else posted this.. No idea why your taking this personally. If you don't want to contribute anymore cause of this, that's on you...


You have to understand, this site for all intensive purposes, is full of skyscraper geeks. We want to see this city get a few more statement buildings and compete with other world class cities. All we ever get in this city is excuses as to why great proposals get turned down because of things like Jessie Ketchum Park shadows. It's the same thing over and over again. Mean while in New York, supertalls around central park are going up casting shadows on a much more significant park and nobody bats an eyelash.

It's very frustrating. Sorry man, but you seem to be taking this way to sensitively

 

[UtakataNoAnnex]

I should clarify here, I think shadow is an interesting issue. And one that challenges developers (or least should) to build buildings with that in mind innovatively without resorting to value engineering their way out. It's obvious that it doesn't work out like that all the time...but that's not what's important here. Rather it should be asked, what was the developer thinking when proposing a building knowingly it would create shadow issues? They have access to those guidelines better than anyone else. And they should of known better. Did they really think making this proposal as fancy as possible The City would overlook that or turn a blind eye?

My objection with the City's reasoning has nothing to do with shadow issues here. As I mentioned, it is more to do with their take on whats "contextually appropriate"...which to me borders on them being disingenuous. It's like they where saying, they really didn't like this proposal and it's personal. And that's how decisions should not be made professionally...

...that said, I do believe developers should work within shadow, height and setback guidelines...even if I find The City's position disappointing initially, like I did here. They're there to save us from the issues of a runaway skyline that's befallen cities in the US. Where buildings where seemingly built in a vacuum that disregarded everything else.

Anywhoose, that's my 2 cents on the matter, informed or otherwise. And I still think The City overkilled on The One, IMO.

 

[Koops65]

One last kick at this one before it dissapears from my model and the Toronto diagram:

 

[Northern Light]

Ohhhh come on man....

As much as we appreciate your input, in this case you simply gave info that would have come to light regardless. The same argument would have broke out at some point once someone else posted this.. No idea why your taking this personally. If you don't want to contribute anymore cause of this, that's on you...

I'm offended by people who waste my time and who say things that are ridiculous (on any subject). While certainly, this item would have been public a few hours or days later, If you think most news and analysis I provide here will be replaced in my absence..........

You have to understand, this site for all intensive purposes, is full of skyscraper geeks.

Really? I've been posting here more than 16 years, I have the 4th highest post count of all time, and you're going to explain this site to me?

We want to see this city get a few more statement buildings and compete with other world class cities.

This is a trope. According to the above statement, Paris, France is a complete backwater, and it will be, until they demolish almost the entire city and replace it with it with 50 storey+ towers.

All we ever get in this city is excuses as to why great proposals turned down because of things Jessie Ketchum Park shadows. It's the same thing over and over again.

This is simply not accurate at all, and is what makes me angry, this is literally 100% wrong.

Mean while in New York, supertalls around central park are going up casting shadows on a much more significant park and nobody bats an eyelash.

Also 100% wrong. You have no idea how planning works in New York City, that's entirely obvious.

Just so we're clear on that:

Shadows cast by super-tall towers in Manhattan spark a protest

New Yorkers are speaking out against the rash of new supertall skyscrapers in Manhattan, citing the long shadows they cast over Central Park

www.dezeen.com

From the above:

And

Revisiting the Last Great Debate Over Skyscraper Shadows

Another tall building, another fight over a share of light.

nymag.com

From the above:

****

There is a long tradition of hand-wringing over lost light. In a New York cover story in 1981, the great urban planner William H. Whyte despaired over the giants rising on Madison Avenue as the decade got under way: “The great slabs do not just knife into the sun; they block it broadside, and down below, they make the existing shadows even darker.”

***

And

Shadows cast by super-tall towers in Manhattan spark a protest

New Yorkers are speaking out against the rash of new supertall skyscrapers in Manhattan, citing the long shadows they cast over Central Park

www.dezeen.com

From the above:

***

And

Shadow of a Doubt: Forthcoming High-Rises Loom Large Over New York and London - Architizer Journal

Would you be happy living in the shadow of a skyscraper? That is the question being asked by many local residents on both sides of the Atlantic at present: As a row of glittering new towers begins to rise along the southern exposure of Central Park in Manhattan, a debate is raging over similar...

architizer.com

From the above:

***

And

Boom in luxury apartments sparks battle over loss of light in Manhattan

The race to build ever-taller towers for the ultra-wealthy has raised an outcry over long shadows that will sweep across Central Park

www.theguardian.com

From the above:

***

And

https://www.npr.org/2014/04/23/305643904/nyc-s-tall-skyscrapers-cast-super-shadows-on-central-park

From the above:

****

There's lots more where those came from..............pages and pages of links.

 

[C-mac]

I'm offended by people who waste my time and who say things that are ridiculous (on any subject). While certainly, this item would have been public a few hours or days later, If you think most news and analysis I provide here will be replaced in my absence..........



Really? I've been posting here more than 16 years, I have the 4th highest post count of all time, and you're going to explain this site to me?



This is a trope. According to the above statement, Paris, France is a complete backwater, and it will be, until they demolish almost the entire city and replace it with it with 50 storey+ towers.



This is simply not accurate at all, and is what makes me angry, this is literally 100% wrong.



Also 100% wrong. You have no idea how planning works in New York City, that's entirely obvious.

Just so we're clear on that:

Shadows cast by super-tall towers in Manhattan spark a protest

New Yorkers are speaking out against the rash of new supertall skyscrapers in Manhattan, citing the long shadows they cast over Central Park

www.dezeen.com

From the above:
View attachment 451048

And

Revisiting the Last Great Debate Over Skyscraper Shadows

Another tall building, another fight over a share of light.

nymag.com

From the above:

View attachment 451049

****

There is a long tradition of hand-wringing over lost light. In a New York cover story in 1981, the great urban planner William H. Whyte despaired over the giants rising on Madison Avenue as the decade got under way: “The great slabs do not just knife into the sun; they block it broadside, and down below, they make the existing shadows even darker.”

***

And

Shadows cast by super-tall towers in Manhattan spark a protest

New Yorkers are speaking out against the rash of new supertall skyscrapers in Manhattan, citing the long shadows they cast over Central Park

www.dezeen.com

From the above:

View attachment 451050

***

And

Shadow of a Doubt: Forthcoming High-Rises Loom Large Over New York and London - Architizer Journal

Would you be happy living in the shadow of a skyscraper? That is the question being asked by many local residents on both sides of the Atlantic at present: As a row of glittering new towers begins to rise along the southern exposure of Central Park in Manhattan, a debate is raging over similar...

architizer.com

From the above:

View attachment 451051

***

And

Boom in luxury apartments sparks battle over loss of light in Manhattan

The race to build ever-taller towers for the ultra-wealthy has raised an outcry over long shadows that will sweep across Central Park

www.theguardian.com

From the above:

View attachment 451052View attachment 451053

***

And

https://www.npr.org/2014/04/23/305643904/nyc-s-tall-skyscrapers-cast-super-shadows-on-central-park

From the above:

View attachment 451054

****

There's lots more where those came from..............pages and pages of links.

Look, no need for sarcasm. I'm not going to get into some tit for tat thing here with you. You look a lot of post out context but I digress.

All I was simply trying to say, as skyscraper geeks we obviously get frustrated when this happens and we're going to have rebuttals. If your going get overly sensitive about this stuff and say "I really have to question how much I'm going to contribute anymore". That's on you.

 

[C-mac]

. Rather it should be asked, what was the developer thinking when proposing a building knowingly it would create shadow issues? They have access to those guidelines better than anyone else. And they should of known better. Did they really think making this proposal as fancy as possible The City would overlook that or turn a blind eye?

In light of the this discussion and The One, I was thinking this very thing today.

 

[cd concept]

One last kick at this one before it dissapears from my model and the Toronto diagram:

View attachment 451046

You mean this project is done? Or do we get a cheaper rendering version lol!

 

[UtakataNoAnnex]

...Toronto's shadow issues would be more readily resolved if the city was to relocate itself somewhere around the equator. So would our snow removal issues...but that's not the topic of concern here. >.<

 

[rbt]

I will be completely and utterly shocked, as i know others will be, if this is ever built as per the initial presentation. too many precedents have already been set.

Agreed.

Since zoning is almost entirely about massing, and what's built can be anything that fits within that massing, rendering architectural details shouldn't be allowed in the application. Giant plain cube diagram only to show the outer limits of the building envelope. We don't even know who the developer will be or which company will design the building that gets built (land regularly gets sold after zoning approval); we only who made a pretty picture for the zoning application.

Either that, or go Chicago style zoning where you submit a specific building design for approval and are given a time-limited approval. Construction must start within 5 years and finish within 15 years or approval is rescinded.

 

[Edward Skira]

This site is more than skyscraper geeks. We named it UrbanToronto and not SkyscraperToronto for a reason. Thanks to people like @Northern Light that remind us height is just one thing we (and the city) should be looking at.

 

[C-mac]

This site is more than skyscraper geeks. We named it UrbanToronto and not SkyscraperToronto for a reason. Thanks to people like @Northern Light that remind us height is just one thing we (and the city) should be looking at.

Of course! Having said that, many of us are sky scraper geeks which is a huge part of the forum, so when tall buildings get refused on height increases, or get outright squashed, there will an inevitable show of frustration. We are thankful to you for this forum, and northern light for his contributions.