Toronto Theatre Park | 156.96m | 47s | Lamb Dev Corp | a—A

^ My response was to this:
RC8 said:
Except those who complain about height here were cheerleading Aura and Trump.
Click to expand...
I obviously assumed that the "cheerleading" those people did, in regards to Aura, was based on its height (and, more specifically, the height increase, since many of us weren't members when Aura was first proposed), but if you'd like to prove otherwise, give me some examples. I'd love to see one where a member (who is a proponent of tall buildings) outright said "I love Aura's pedestrian realm!" or such absurdities, which you two are claiming as fact.

P.S. If you read my comment more carefully, you'll see that I was specifically referring to Aura's aesthetics as a tall building, which's what this discussion is about. Please don't take my comments out of context; I have never been a fan of Aura's pedestrian realm. In fact, the only good things I've said about Aura's retail have been in relation to Yonge (i.e. the trashiest street in Toronto), which isn't saying much.
 
DtTO said:
^ Yeah...or maybe it has to do with the fact that people tend to encourage height for buildings that are aesthetically pleasing? A perfect example is Theatre Park, which was unfortunately scaled back (to the dismay of many on UT) to roughly the same height as less interesting buildings, like Cinema Tower.
Click to expand...

Yes but how would encouraging more height necessarily make Theatre Park more aesthetically pleasing? Why the assumptions of a 1:1 relationship between height and pleasing aesthetics?

I think these questions go to the heart of what irks me and others about the height-obsessive-compulsives on these boards.
 
Last edited:
condovo said:
Yes but how would encouraging more height necessarily make Theatre Park more aesthetically pleasing? Why the assumptions of a 1:1 relationship between height and pleasing aesthetics?
Click to expand...

You clearly misunderstood what I was saying. The reason people tend to encourage heights for aesthetically pleasing buildings isn't because height will somehow increase their beauty (though it might), but because height will make them stand out amongst their surroundings. I don't see why wanting our best architecture to stand out and be prominent is a bad thing. In fact, many heritage buildings in other cities are lit via flood lights at night for that very reason.

I think these questions go to the heart of what irks me and others about the height-obsessive-compulsives on these boards.
Click to expand...

I think the issue is more of you misunderstanding things, living in a black/white world (either you're height obsessed or not), and just generally being condescending towards anyone who doesn't fit into your model.
 
^ I think buildings should stand out on their own merits, small or tall, not because of their height. Theatre Park doesn't look particularly truncated to me. In the contrary. It seems rather beautifully proportioned. Added height could easily have made it less aesthetically pleasing.
 
Last edited:
condovo said:
^ I think buildings should stand out on their own merits, small or tall, not because their height. Theatre Park doesn't look particularly truncated to me. In the contrary. It seems rather beautifully proportioned. Added height could easily have made it less aesthetically pleasing.
Click to expand...

Exactly my thoughts on this one. The moderate height and the slim floorplate will make for some really nice proportions. Any taller and it would seem a little bit too stretched, and the pattern on the sides might have seemed a bit busy if repeated a few more times.
 
IMG_00000743_hdr.jpg


Today from RBC Centre.
 

Attachments

  • IMG_00000743_hdr.jpg
    IMG_00000743_hdr.jpg
    97.5 KB · Views: 1,201
^ Definitely room to grow upwards in this city. From many angles it is amazing how abruptly the downtown high-rise district ends.
 
meh ... why ? For the sake of density and height ? Sure ... but keep in mind those areas you refer too are not generally full of parking lots, rather office / residential buildings in the 5-10 story range ... if you look east of the core you'd have the same opinion but King East has the perfect built form in my opinion (the St. Lawrence market area in general) and again you won't see many high buildings there either.
 
Therion said:
^ Definitely room to grow upwards in this city. From many angles it is amazing how abruptly the downtown high-rise district ends.
Click to expand...

A lot of the neighbourhoods visible in that scene are made up of vibrant commercial strips and attractive Victorian neighbourhoods. I welcome well designed midrise infill, but as taal mentions, ultimately those areas are already built up and don't need to be disturbed by misplaced highrises.
 
Though, given aA's near perfect batting average, I'd say this has a good chance of looking better than most (if not all) of the office currently proposed in this city.
 
ProjectEnd said:
Though, given aA's near perfect batting average, I'd say this has a good chance of looking better than most (if not all) of the office currently proposed in this city.
Click to expand...

Agreed, though I have high expectations of Globe & Mail Centre. D+S don't play games.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top