Density Toronto: Why the skyscrapers on steroids?
 

Density Toronto: Why the skyscrapers on steroids?
Published on Friday October 26, 2012
Wendy Gillis, Staff Reporter

Toronto’s fascination with towering architecture is in stark relief in its inimitable and ever-changing skyline.

There, the iconic CN tower and lofty downtown office buildings are increasingly joined by glass and steel residential structures reaching upwards of 40 storeys.

But lately, developers and city builders have their heads even further in the clouds. Within just weeks, Toronto has seen five proposals for super skyscrapers that, if built, would be among the tallest in the country.

First, businessman David Mirvish announced plans to build three 80- to 85-storey condominium towers. On Thursday, Oxford Properties Group revealed its casino proposal includes two towers that would be 70 storeys each, 40 for office space below and 30 for residences above. All would be within a few blocks of each other near King St. W.

Why is it that Toronto is suddenly going for skyscrapers on steroids — is this a matter of need or desire?

Jennifer Keesmaat, Toronto’s chief planner, says if the city focuses on building midrise buildings along the avenues — streets planners have designated as ripe for growth — Toronto can meet the province’s growth targets without 80 storey buildings, and with “significant amount of room to spare.”

http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/arti...rs-on-steroids

^Uhh, because there's demand for them. What an idiotic column.

the only thing people hate more than sprawl is intensification.

Is there though? I'm not sure condo purchasers are scrambling to make sure they're in the tallest towers in the city. What the column is asking is, why now are supertalls being proposed when there are many places that could accommodate your everyday 20-40 storey condo towers, enough buildings that would easily equal the same number of units in those supertalls combined.

location

they say there are 3 key things for selling a home... Location, Location, and Location.

The proper question is "why NOT the skyscrapers on steroids?"

That's exactly why people are lining up to pay 7 digits for a high-rise downtown condo in a nice building. Not only do they get gorgeous views of the lake and/or the city but they get also get everything downtown has to offer.

Great question. And it's one my city (LA) should be asking as well.

i just came back from miami beach/miami which, though a city absolutely filled with towers, has atrocious suburban sprawl. basically, i think that people down there buy them for the same reasons that people buy them in etobicoke or something - building amenities, simple lifestyle, modern convenience. in central toronto (the parts of the city that pre-date the idiotic amalgamation), i think people are buying for those reasons, but also majorly for proximity to local amenities and work, and status issues like building notoriety and locale, and view and that. the difference between these two explains precisely the demand for something like the mirvish towers.

20-40 storey towers are the worst of both worlds - they lack the intimate scale of low/mid-rise developments, and they lack the grandeur of 60+ storey towers. A bit of skyline filler is okay, but they shouldn't be the only option for development.

My thoughts exactly!

I think Toronto does an excellent job on it's low/midsize buildings. They are uniformaly attractive, pedestrian friendly, use different architectural stlyes, building materials, colours, and try to fit into the neighbourhood. It's Toronto highrises that are sterile.

The only requirement for building over 20 stories seems to be that they don't fall down. This is why, despite having an unprecedented building boom, Toronto skyscrapers are monotonous blue glass. Every building over 20 stories in Totonto, especially the condos, seem to be CityPlace 101 and all the sterility and alienating enviornment it creates.

As far as why proposals seem endless and taller all the time, what Insertnamehere is absolutely right.......location, location, location. One one hand that is a tribute to Toronto as people want to live downtown in what is an incredibly vibrant city but on the other hand is the result of decades of Toronto not expanding it's subway system which has resulted in few options for people without a car or want to live without commuting with it.

I think you hit the nail on the head with one point there. The lack of expanding the subway decades ago. Toronto is crying out for a better transit system, especially the subway. Trains into Union Station are fine, could be better, but could be a lot worse. But getting elsewhere across the city by public transit is not easy at all. The cost would be phenomenal now to fully build a multitude of subway lines, but it is something Toronto so desperately needs.

Jen Keesmaat’s Big Idea

Read More: http://torontoist.com/2013/01/jen-keesmaats-big-idea/




http://torontoist.com/wp-content/upl...-toronto-2.jpg

A touchy subject with Americans, but I wanted to see how we stacked up to Chicago these days so I tabled a quantitative snapshot of the built form. Extracted from the SSP database, this is for completed and under construction only. I'm honestly surprised how close it's getting.

It's really just in super tall buildings where Toronto falls short and we cream them in the 50-99m category. Toronto will likely be ahead in 3 of the 5 categories in 1-2 years.

Built, U/C

# of Buildings 400m+
Chicago 1
Toronto 1

# of Buildings 300-399m
Chicago 3
Toronto 0

# of Buildings 200-299m
Chicago 24
Toronto 19

# of Buildings 100-199m
Chicago 278
Toronto 235

# of Buildings 50-99m
Chicago 636
Toronto 1028

Yes, I know it's not a highrise, but Toronto should tie Chicago in the 400m+ category with the CN Tower. It is certainly right up there with Sears/Willis in terms of skyline impact...

Agree. The CN Tower is usually excluded from the discussion, but it has huge visual impact on the skyline regardless of what it's classified as. I'm going to add it above.

And a snap shot into the future. Proposals aren't a sure thing, but if they get built this is how it will pan out. I've included the CN Tower as I agree it has visual impact despite not being a 'building'.

Built, U/C, Proposed

# of Buildings 400m+
Chicago 2
Toronto 1

# of Buildings 300-399m
Chicago 5
Toronto 0

# of Buildings 200-299m
Chicago 32
Toronto 37

# of Buildings 100-199m
Chicago 301
Toronto 329

# of Buildings 50-99m
Chicago 651
Toronto 1105

I think Toronto's a great city. It's our ambassador city to the world, and does Canada proud. I'm from Vanouver, a city with capped height limits to 150m, the a couple of exceptions around 200m. Not at all impressive, but homogenous, if nothing else.
I like the Toronto downtown streets and tall buildings lining them, and the clusters of tall buildings that sprout ubiquitously throughout the city.
But from what I see in future planned renders, Toronto seems intoxicated with height and design daring that goes to the limits. I think I'm thinking of the Theatre District in this case.
I wish it were possible (need corporate donations, no doubt) for less audacious (outlandish?) high-rise designs and more a calming, harmonious citywide architectural
statement, dare I even suggest more pocket parks and open space downtown?.
Love Toronto, want to see it get ever better, but please don't overdo it, is really what I'm saying.