They cannot be serious....maybe it's just the poor quality renderings but this looks awful. Like a less imaginative version of the original WTC in New York. The scale is fine but take it back to the drawing board. I have no idea why the city doesn't push back on such blandly designed skyscrapers. If you're going to insist on making a statement on the city skyline there should be a requirement to be architecturally distinct
 
ComptoirGeneral said:
They cannot be serious....maybe it's just the poor quality renderings but this looks awful. Like a less imaginative version of the original WTC in New York. The scale is fine but take it back to the drawing board. I have no idea why the city doesn't push back on such blandly designed skyscrapers. If you're going to insist on making a statement on the city skyline there should be a requirement to be architecturally distinct
Click to expand...

I agree that bland and downright ugly towers are a scourge in this city. But I also wouldn't trust "the city" to be the arbiters of whether a skyscraper is architecturally distinct/sound. It'll also be used as an example of more red-tape and as a weapon for NIMBYs to ensure nothing is built.
 
Last edited:
ComptoirGeneral said:
They cannot be serious....maybe it's just the poor quality renderings but this looks awful. Like a less imaginative version of the original WTC in New York. The scale is fine but take it back to the drawing board. I have no idea why the city doesn't push back on such blandly designed skyscrapers. If you're going to insist on making a statement on the city skyline there should be a requirement to be architecturally distinct
Click to expand...

The City is expressly precluded from imposing aesthetic requirements on buildings.

(one could argue the merits of said restriction, but that's a provincial matter)

The only real exception to this is heritage designated buildings and to some degree, sites adjacent to same, particulaly within a Heritage Conservation District.

Even then, the reasoning for any requirement needs to be tightly linked to heritage preservation argument.
 
A big fat NO to GoBand Development & SVN arch. Just scraping the bottom of the barrel here for amusement, but I can live with the ordinary design, but the GREY makes it an atrocious, cheap, thoughtless, substandard endeavour with zero regard for Toronto as a city & it’s future skyline. This is a supertall in a prime downtown area. Ditch the grey cladding & facade or it will be another uninspiring, dull, tiresome addition to the long list of boring & drab towers. If the Design Review Panel & the city of Toronto, aren’t yet aware with the big GREY problem the city has, and don’t critique that, not to mention the very flat design, then they are a useless group of so-called professionals with a low set of standards themselves, re architecture & built structure Speak up loud at least or why do we even have them as a critique board? Developers can’t just build whatever & wherever they want esp. in prime downtown locations in any city. And to the 88 story mega tower (if it gets built) there’s that ONE vibrant red building nearby that you may want to take some inspiration from. Just be better than grey.
 
Northern Light said:
The City is expressly precluded from imposing aesthetic requirements on buildings.

(one could argue the merits of said restriction, but that's a provincial matter)

The only real exception to this is heritage designated buildings and to some degree, sites adjacent to same, particulaly within a Heritage Conservation District.

Even then, the reasoning for any requirement needs to be tightly linked to heritage preservation argument.
Click to expand...
I didn't know that fact, but nonetheless it's still disappointing that the developers and architects in this city have so little artistic or aesthetic vision. I'd be happy if they ditched the grey panelling for something of colour
 
Northern Light said:
The City is expressly precluded from imposing aesthetic requirements on buildings.

(one could argue the merits of said restriction, but that's a provincial matter)

The only real exception to this is heritage designated buildings and to some degree, sites adjacent to same, particulaly within a Heritage Conservation District.

Even then, the reasoning for any requirement needs to be tightly linked to heritage preservation argument.
Click to expand...
And that’s set in stone somewhere? “City precluded from imposing aesthetic requirements” Well, it should be. Things change, should change. This will too sooner than later. More input from the city planning staff (DRP) & hopefully a new appointed “City Architect” position being voted on upcoming, will impact that. A building’s design & materials used is more than an “aesthetic” afterthought or add on. The design & look of a building should, at its core, amongst other visual pleasing aspects, reflect cultural, technological, modern trends & also the sustainability of the structure.
 
Skyhighzz said:
And that’s set in stone somewhere? “City precluded from imposing aesthetic requirements” Well, it should be. Things change, should change. This will too sooner than later. More input from the city planning staff (DRP) & hopefully a new appointed “City Architect” position being voted on upcoming, will impact that. A building’s design & materials used is more than an “aesthetic” afterthought or add on. The design & look of a building should, at its core, amongst other visual pleasing aspects, reflect cultural, technological, modern trends & also the sustainability of the structure.
Click to expand...

The province's guide to Site Plan Control:

www.ontario.ca

Site plan control guide

Site plan control is a planning tool municipalities use to manage community development. Learn about the site plan review process and how it can be improved.
www.ontario.ca www.ontario.ca

From the above:

1750800228113.png
 
Northern Light said:
The province's guide to Site Plan Control:

www.ontario.ca

Site plan control guide

Site plan control is a planning tool municipalities use to manage community development. Learn about the site plan review process and how it can be improved.
www.ontario.ca www.ontario.ca

From the above:

View attachment 661430
Click to expand...
Yes I get it. But building codes from the province can’t be reversed & changed if municipalities pushed, fought, went to court for that change? Of course it can. Zoning bi-laws once set in cement have seen many changes recently. It just takes leadership. Exterior design & material used (colour scheme of buildings) seems to be one and the same. Maybe even better communication, like minded goals for the city & more coordinated efforts b/w developers, architects, the city (DRP) can be achieved. Things change all the time.
 
Skyhighzz said:
And that’s set in stone somewhere? “City precluded from imposing aesthetic requirements” Well, it should be. Things change, should change. This will too sooner than later. More input from the city planning staff (DRP) & hopefully a new appointed “City Architect” position being voted on upcoming, will impact that. A building’s design & materials used is more than an “aesthetic” afterthought or add on. The design & look of a building should, at its core, amongst other visual pleasing aspects, reflect cultural, technological, modern trends & also the sustainability of the structure.
Click to expand...

Northern Light said:
The province's guide to Site Plan Control:

www.ontario.ca

Site plan control guide

Site plan control is a planning tool municipalities use to manage community development. Learn about the site plan review process and how it can be improved.
www.ontario.ca www.ontario.ca
Click to expand...
Even more determinative, from the Planning Act:

Exclusions from site plan control

(4.1) The following matters relating to buildings described in paragraph 2 of subsection (4) are not subject to site plan control:

1. Interior design.

1.1 Exterior design, except to the extent that it is a matter relating to exterior access to a building that will contain affordable housing units or to any part of such a building or is a matter referred to in subparagraph 2 (d) of subsection (4).

2. The layout of interior areas, excluding interior walkways, stairs, elevators and escalators referred to in subparagraph 2 (c) of subsection (4).

3. The manner of construction and standards for construction. 2006, c. 23, s. 16 (5); 2022, c. 21, Sched. 9, s. 11 (3).
 
Skyhighzz said:
Yes I get it.
Click to expand...

You specifically asked if that was in writing somewhere, I went and fetched it for you. The correct response is 'Thank you'.

Skyhighzz said:
But building codes from the province can’t be reversed & changed if municipalities pushed, fought, went to court for that change?
Click to expand...

No actually. Ontario can literally abolish the City of Toronto on a whim. That is constitutional, it has been tested in court.

So the City cannot really effectively challenge the right of the province to regulate it.

Skyhighzz said:
Of course it can. Zoning bi-laws once set in cement have seen many changes recently. It just takes leadership. Exterior design & material used (colour scheme of buildings) seems to be one and the same. Maybe even better communication, like minded goals for the city & more coordinated efforts b/w developers, architects, the city (DRP) can be achieved. Things change all the time.
Click to expand...

Yes, the City can make changes within the bounds set by the province.

Sure, you can 'persuade' the province to make a change. That's possible. Feel free to attend the next 'Ford Fest' and bend the Premier's ear on the subject.

***

For clarity, I'm not opposed to including certain aesthetic regulation, I have some appreciation for places that can be much more prescriptive than Ontario, Canada in such matters.

I'm not unsympathetic to your argument.

But your sense of where the City's current authority lies or its means for challenging that are off a bit.
 
I see the shadow of that thing covering several parks when it's said and built...
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top