Toronto Ten York Street Condos | 224.02m | 65s | Tridel | Wallman Architects

000 said:
Is height really that significant of a symbol of prosperity? We have lots of land and our CBD can be extended to the Portlands if our city keeps investing in itself and not settling on 3rd world infrastructure (i.e. over capacity buses on Queens Quay East)
Click to expand...

And what of the skyline tapering policy going east and west of downtown?
 
Distillery district condos already stick out like a sore thumb from the Islands, might as well fill in the skyline with other mid and low rise buildings. Between East Bay Front+West Don Lands+Lower Port lands, we could fit 3 or 4 additional financial districts of the same area. If push came to shove, demand is off the charts, and the city wants itself to grow, that area will get built, tapering policy is just a tool to contain short and medium-term development, it doesn't mean there will never be land or there will never be a supertall again. Toronto is just having another of hopefully many more economic booms to come..
 
GenericUser said:
Many of us have those views. low rise buildings have no place in the CBD. I don't care what sentimental value you personally attach to them, it is not shared by everyone. Restoring them and incorporating them into a highrise (a la Shangri-La) is fine, but to expect random low rise "heritage" structures to be left untouched in the middle of downtown is outright ludicrous. Especially considering that the city is on a heritage-labelling frenzy and practically everything built prior to WWI is now a "heritage" structure.
Click to expand...

Read my comments again. You didn't get them the first time around. If you read slowly, you will note that nowhere did I advocate for the exclusive construction of low rise buildings in the CBD. That's error number one. Second, in the case of Shangri-La, the low rise structure was not preserved, but rebuilt. That will be the fate of many more buildings in the coming years - faux preservation by rebuilding or by facadectomy. That's not really preservation.

As for your comments, it would appear that you view heritage - or any heritage preservation efforts - as "ludicrous." You can rest assured that much of what would have been heritage today has already been removed. Your sentiments are similar to those expressed 50 years ago by developers who happily tore down any structure that was deemed to be old, out of date or not modern enough for their tastes. My expressed view - as someone who lives downtown - is that whether a building is 75 or 68 floors at this specific location is of little difference. That some residents dared to express concerns seems to have upset some people here, which meant that they felt free to go and make immature remarks about the age of some participants.

I stand by my original statement: there is a little more to a successful building - and a successful city - than building height.
 
No value is shared by everyone, that doesn't mean policies shouldn't be made by extension. Besides, just what does heritage conservation has *anything* to do with the reduction of height in this proposal? Other posters have made far more nuanced analysis of what could be going on. And besides, this project will have a direct impact on the residents in the area - now we might see them as trivial and petty, it doesn't mean one shouldn't at least consider the issues - instead of berating them on the basis of age. Certainly, it makes for more convincing an argument than making planning decisions on the basis of whatever symbolism height is supposed to carry for someone with absolutely no stakes in the project. Like "we should build tall because it makes me feel better about the city". What kind of planning argument is that?

BTW, interesting coincidence of views re: heritage conservation and L Tower cladding.

AoD
 
Last edited:
Seems we have two major mind sets here. One is all for "the taller the better", while others prefer a more cautious, economically viable option, with height considerations secondary. I won't lie, I'm all for taller (hopefully supertall one day), yet at the same time, reality seeps in, not all proposals (very few actually) go as planned. To use the worst cliche I can find, can't we all just get along? The more I read here, the more I realize the complexities involved in putting up a tower, it gives us plenty of fodder for discussion, but in this particular case, I'm willing to bet 68 will not be the top out floor count. As for heritage buildings, if you have any sense of historical pride, you have to allow these building to be completely restored, not just leaving their facade. There is plenty of room in our core to allow both to exist. They are a vital part of our cities history, particularly, of architectural history, something I'd expect a site dedicate to just that would appreciate, but that's just my insane views on things, to each his (or hers) own!
 
We have just put up a front page story on the latest revisions to Ten York. The story should have gone up sooner, but we have been waiting for Tridel to authorize Wallman Architects to release the actual renderings to us. The actual renderings would look far better than the photos of what was being projected on the wall at the public consultation, and we wanted to give you the best look at the new plans. Tridel has still not responded to our request, so we have decided to go ahead and publish the story with the so-so images. We thought you should know. You can read the article here.

42
 
The new podium looks WAY more interesting, and God forbid, quite architectural and sophisticated!

From the pics., that's all I can tell thus far. The facade almost looks a bit Trellick Tower or Corbusian to me though.
 
Hopefully this will have less spandrel than the current Tridel + Wallman project at 300 Front.
 
Much more interesting all around - would like to see some additional details/improvements to the tower (e.g. Materials) but it is decent as is.

AoD
 
Ok, this looks promising. Be nice to see better renders soon, though but it's not a plain box and that's already a great start. I like how it subtly tapers out as it rises.

If I had to take sides I'd have to say that achieving height for its own sake, especially at the expense of retaining as much of the city's remaining architectural history as reasonably possible, is not optimal. And I'd rather see a well-designed, striking 68 story tower than a badly flawed 75 story one.
 
the new design is definitely a step up from the previous. the knife-like portion that goes up the building is working for me. the photos of the renders made it hard to see details, but hopefully we'll get some large, finalized, and sharper renders/photos soon

also, by far a more iconic design.
and for once, I honestly don't care for the height decrease for this project... Whether this was to be 75 or 68 stories, it's still going to have a huge impact on the skyline from the south, east, and west. not to mention, the taller this thing is, the more steam it takes away from the CBD (bad or good depending on how you view it), and me, personally, if the CBD disappears from the south, or skyline WILL be condos.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top