Toronto Bay Adelaide Centre | 217.92m | 51s | Brookfield | KPMB

The shadowing concerns are over-done for the downtown core. Most areas of central Toronto overall have little to no shadowing concerns and therefore if the area in and around the financial district is shadowed, does it really matter that much? Especially in light of the fact that the financial district is the only area (as far as I know so far) that has no height restrictions (in the context of the Tall Buildings study). Yet, even within this very small and almost fullly built out area, the NPS shadowing issue comes up, meaning even here in the financial district, at the end of the day, there is height restriction, and unfortunately it's applicable on the northern end of the district (i.e. Adelaide to Queen) which is the area that has the most potential for new development (BAC II & BAC III, RA III, Indx site, etc.).
 
Well, I think avoiding shadowing of NPS is not a bad idea - but there needs to be a bit of flexibility of the degree (and cumulative effect) of such. Sites like BA are probably ok.

And before one think it's a Toronto thing - it isn't. NYC has similar issues with Central Park.

AoD
 
^ Maybe so, but Central Park is a magnificent organic oasis in the midst of a giant urban arena and it is not dead centre in the middle of the highrise area. NPS is a concrete wasteland very close to the heart of our financial highrise area. It seems hard to justify the "no shadow" requirement when there is nothing green in the entire area and people don't congregate there any more than they do at Yong and Eglinton or Dundas Square. Ask the general populace if this is an issue for them.
 
I think the very fact that you used the term "wasteland" and the comment that "people don't congregate there vs. whatever" bespoke of certain biases. It's probably the most important civic space in the city - it demands a certain degree of care to manage the impact surrounding projects might have on it.

AoD
 
I will say that I wish that the site of New City Hall had been chosen to be somewhere further from the CBD. Of course, at the time it was chosen shadowing was not an issue in the slightest, and the people who chose that site could not have known that within a few decades, shadows would be regarded as something to be feared and avoided (I personally welcome them in the sweltering days of summer). Had they known this, I am sure they would have chosen another site for NPS, perhaps in the St. Lawrence area, near the first City Hall.
 
Some good points are being made on both sides of the argument (although some points werent worded gracefully). City Hall is an icon of toronto and is easily recognized as "ours" more than any other building, and it should be treated with respect. City workers clearly want to keep NPS a sunny enjoyable place to work. I would find any "historical preservation of the public space" reasoning behind shadowing concerns laughable (coming from the city hall that allows equally important structures the be reduced to mere facades of their former glory). Also, there isnt much plant life that needs to be supported at NPS so sunlight for plants shouldnt factor into shadowing concerns. Despite all the arguments, city hall still calls the shots on this one so the best we can hope for is a compromise.
If we are lucky that is...
Maybe something massive and boxlike from the ground to 250m then a series of setbacks to narrow out any potential shadow on NPS? ookkk im getting way ahead of myself...shouldn't hav had that third coffee
 
Stop voting in liberal councillors. That will put an end to the shadow nonsense.

MOD EDIT: My real name is Steven Bodrug and I have been banned multiple times from this forum, as Mystery White Boy, Dugmor, Garth the Butcher, etc.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Big Daddy said:
^ Maybe so, but Central Park is a magnificent organic oasis in the midst of a giant urban arena and it is not dead centre in the middle of the highrise area. NPS is a concrete wasteland very close to the heart of our financial highrise area. It seems hard to justify the "no shadow" requirement when there is nothing green in the entire area and people don't congregate there any more than they do at Yong and Eglinton or Dundas Square. Ask the general populace if this is an issue for them.
Click to expand...

Lots of people spend time at Nathan Phillips Square for socializing, relaxation, eating, events, protests, and other activities like skating. I think it's a beautiful and inspiring space with its architecture, design, and views, and even more now with the podium green roof. It functions like you'd want any great urban square to work. If you haven't noticed, it's surrounded on all sides by greenery. For its civic importance, shadowing is a critical issue. It feels great when you spend a lot of time in the shadows of the streets of the CBD to emerge onto Nathan Phillips Square filled with sunlight, like any great space should be.

Even if you absolutely hate NPS, it can always be redesigned as the oasis you like. Once the buildings go up that ignore shadowing concerns, then it's too late for at least a century. As a Torontonian, you'd have to have no self-respect whatsoever to prioritize a single private interest like a skyscraper development over the most prominent civic space available to everyone in the city. Shadowing concerns can also result in greater architectural creativity and more interesting towers, utilizing setbacks and other features. These concerns deserve to be treated with respect and properly addressed.
 
Last edited:
ahmad.m.atiya said:
These idiotic shadowing concerns are getting really old. Move to a farm if you want less shadows. Problem solved.
Click to expand...

Once you think of "shadowing concerns" less as an issue onto itself and more as a component of "urban design", your dismissal starts looking a bit short-sighted.

Besides, as an urban design issue, "shadowing concerns" are, shall we say, "old"--or rather, affirmed through planning history and practice. It's a reason why, almost a century ago, NYC enacted zoning laws that effectively established the setback skyscraper as an urban paradigm...
 
AlvinofDiaspar said:
I think the very fact that you used the term "wasteland" and the comment that "people don't congregate there vs. whatever" bespoke of certain biases. It's probably the most important civic space in the city - it demands a certain degree of care to manage the impact surrounding projects might have on it.

AoD
Click to expand...


I would agree that it should be an important space - but City hall could do more to make it so - no one goes there unless they are protesting or enjoying new Years Eve, In either case shadows are not an issue.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top