Toronto Maple Leaf Square | 185.92m | 54s | Lanterra | KPMB

Andrew3D said:
2628355502_e7c852bdc1_o.jpg
Click to expand...

Im sorry, I have always been confused here. On the left is Telus and on the right is the Residences of MLS? Correct?

This is where I am confused as I thought MLS was two buildings and not one. Does anyone care to explain?
 
Telus is on the left (far side) and MSL is on the right (near side). MLS is two buildings but the podium is what is currently under construction which joins the two buildings together.
 
I'll miss the view of the Royal York. Hopefully these buildings will be worth it. It's not like the postcard view can stay the same forever. And you know people would also complain if it stayed the same, because then our city would be "stagnant". Which would be true.
 
ProjectEnd said:
/\ We must, however, remember what happens when one tries to preserve a bygone era. These buildings don't block the skyline, but instead expand it and increase its density.
Click to expand...

You might as well use the same argument to demolish the Royal York on behalf of something bigger, you know...
 
adma said:
You might as well use the same argument to demolish the Royal York on behalf of something bigger, you know...
Click to expand...

Except that isn't the same argument at all.

How many people actually go out into the lake to see the skyline? Far more people see the Royal York from Union Station and that will never change.
 
ProjectEnd said:
These buildings don't block the skyline, but instead expand it and increase its density.
Click to expand...

I don't think you'll find anyone around here who is against expansion and density but I think for many of us, the current "postcard view" of the "face" of our skyline (with the Royal York and the surrounding uniquely different towers) has much sentimental value. And more importantly, that "postcard view" is quite stunning and is something to be rivaled. With the possible exception of the Ice Condos, from what I've seen the new buildings that are/will be going up aren't anything special or iconic.

It was always with much pride that I chauffered out-of-town guests into the city via the Gardner so that I could watch their expressions when they saw how the Royal York and the gold RBC tower and Scotia Tower and BMO Tower work together to create such a grand and bold entrance to the city.

I have a feeling that that "wow" moment which is triggered by the beauty will be a "wow" moment that is just triggered by the density.
 
Koz said:
Except that isn't the same argument at all.

How many people actually go out into the lake to see the skyline? Far more people see the Royal York from Union Station and that will never change.
Click to expand...

Ah, but the mythic, definitive "postcard view" of the Royal York is and has always been the frontal "skyline" view. Otherwise, the recent controversy over the "Fairmonting" of the sign wouldn't have taken place.

Even if, as you claim, "far more people" see it from Union Station, it isn't a view with mythos--from that perspective, the Royal York's just an overwhelming hulk of 1920s hotel architecture.

And as far as "going out into the lake to see the skyline" goes: uh, yeah, as if Toronto Island and the Island ferry didn't exist. (Though yes, from all too many angles you have to squint through stuff like Harbour Square to notice.)

And then there's the matter of the view from the Gardiner--oh yeah, forgot, we might not have that to kick around much longer, either...

Above all, remember that I'm responding to "We must, however, remember what happens when one tries to preserve a bygone era". For the sake of argument, wouldn't even clinging to the Royal York *at all*, never mind its mere skyline view, embody that so-called undesirable preservation of "a bygone era"? Why not rip it down, then, and replace it with a 100-storey Zaha Hadid tour de force? A nice, high-style way to "expand and increase the density" of the skyline, etc...
 
adma said:
Even if, as you claim, "far more people" see it from Union Station, it isn't a view with mythos--from that perspective, the Royal York's just an overwhelming hulk of 1920s hotel architecture.
Click to expand...

Perhaps it's just me but I appreciate the up-close view of the Royal York from Union better. It seems far more overwhelming, and you don't notice the new towers dwarfing it so much.

And then there's the matter of the view from the Gardiner--oh yeah, forgot, we might not have that to kick around much longer, either...
Click to expand...

This is true, but the Gardiner provides sight lines of the Royal York from multiple angles. We'll lose some of the most direct angles, which is a shame, but it's not as if the hotel will be completely obscured from the highway.

Above all, remember that I'm responding to "We must, however, remember what happens when one tries to preserve a bygone era". For the sake of argument, wouldn't even clinging to the Royal York *at all*, never mind its mere skyline view, embody that so-called undesirable preservation of "a bygone era"? Why not rip it down, then, and replace it with a 100-storey Zaha Hadid tour de force? A nice, high-style way to "expand and increase the density" of the skyline, etc...
Click to expand...

But there's an implied distinction in that statement between skyline and architecture. The question is what's of more value to you? The skyline or the buildings themselves? For me, it's the latter. I'd be willing to lose the view of the RY on the skyline from the south, but I'd never want to lose the building itself.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top