Toronto Union Park | 303.26m | 58s | Oxford Properties | Pelli Clarke Pelli

salsa said:
I'm guessing they dropped the decking over the tracks
Click to expand...

You may be right. I can imagine that getting approvals from Metrolinx to be very difficult. If the hotel is dropped then I'm okay with that. I want the Delta to be the go-to hotel down here anyway. A revamp of the MTCC, plus new office and rental buildings would be great. The rest is just a bonus.
 
Honestly even if they just renovated / expanded the convention center that'd be a great assert for Toronto ! I believe its only around 600,000 square feet today but large convention center across North America are usually around 1 million +
 
Mongo said:
From AndrewJM3D on SSC:



My own guess on the bad news: the hotel towers have been dropped. Nothing to really support this conclusion, but without the casino, the tourist traffic would be significantly less. The office towers should be unaffected, though. No idea about if decking the tracks is still planned.

edit -- changed SSP to SSC
Click to expand...


I wonder if the height of the towers has been increased? I also wonder if some of the good news is about the mall that was proposed next to the casino. Wasn't it supposed to be as large as the Eaton Centre in size?
 
And there aren't quite the same heritage issues here as with the Gehry proposal, nor will the towers here be as tightly packed as they are proposed at 1 Yonge.
 
^ Never underestimate city councilors' irrational fear of height. I'm sure they'll come up with some arbitrary "shadowing" or "view corridor" complaint.
 
The city is hardly fearful of height and what may seem arbitrary could be due to a lack of understanding.
 
DtTO said:
^ Never underestimate city councilors' irrational fear of height. I'm sure they'll come up with some arbitrary "shadowing" or "view corridor" complaint.
Click to expand...

Most shadowing and view corridor concerns aren't arbitrary. It may be that a neighbourhood park is the only significant public space in an area, hence why it shouldn't be in shadows, or a historic landmark whose visibility from certain places is important to an area's sense of place.
 
Last edited:
junctionist said:
Most shadowing and view corridor concerns aren't arbitrary. It may be that a neighbourhood park is the only significant public space in an area, hence why it shouldn't be in shadows, or a historic landmark whose visibility from certain places is important to an area's sense of place.
Click to expand...

+1.

And, if I may, I would suggest that we should instead never underestimate certain UT member's irrational fear of well founded concerns over shadowing, view corridors, and heritage, or their irrational feelings of persecution whenever the architectural merits of certain tall buildings or proposals are discussed and critiqued, especially when those projects are found wanting.
 
anonymous0024 said:
+1.

And, if I may, I would suggest that we should instead never underestimate certain UT member's irrational fear of well founded concerns over shadowing, view corridors, and heritage, or their irrational feelings of persecution whenever the architectural merits of certain tall buildings or proposals are discussed and critiqued, especially when those projects are found wanting.
Click to expand...

+1
 
Very true, but I don't see any reason why this should be a problem. No major parks other than the one directly across the street (which already boxed in by highrises and experiences heavy shadowing), has no heritage issues, and the height isn't out of place. The only real problem I see with it is the potential to block the CN Tower's views, which even then is minimal and can be prevented by properly positioning the Towers on the site.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top