It's pretty much sold out ... so all they'll need to do is sell the additional units in the building which from the diagram seem to be a very small percentage of the total.

For the most part I don't think people will care about change in the podium ... most non UT forumrs and alike that is : - )

Here's a quick update I did for comparison. Please excuse my horrendous MS paint skills.


http://www.eikongraphia.com/wordpress/wp-content/Daniel_Libeskind_L-Tower_4_Small.jpghttp://i33.************/27xi23t.jpg

I gotta say, I'm hating the change.

I think it's not L tower anymore...
If it is, then I would say there are L towers everywhere.

I liked the original design a lot better.
Bay adelide centre, the Trump tower, and L tower...
I think Toronto does have some kind of godly power to make all the high-rise proposals look boxy, simple, or boring.

ugh.....why, just why

I'm sad to admit that I actually agree with Dream Brother's post.

Dammit, the base was the best part of this tower!

I think the change looks like shit... the original was great.

Here are the links for the city background files again.

http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2008/ex/bgrd/backgroundfile-15921.pdf
http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2008/ex/bgrd/backgroundfile-15922.pdf

From the staff report:" The original Umbrella Agreement with Castlepoint Realty Partners Ltd. (Castlepoint) incorporated a fallback scenario in which a commercial development would be constructed in the strata land below the proposed condominium tower in lieu of the City Centre. However, at its meeting in July, 2008, Council approved amendments to the Umbrella Agreement that provided staff and the developer, Castlepoint Realty Partners Ltd., with the opportunity to examine a further alternative for this strata land. Under this alternative, the strata land would be used for additional residential development and a public plaza instead of a commercial development."

I'm not sure where the "additional residential development" is exactly on the site. Seems to be mostly a funding issue.

That's just so wrong. When does an agreement count for anything in this city? It's when things like this happen over and over again, that people lose all faith in this city. (think 1 Bloor E, Metropolis and The Rom Crystal) It's very rare for this city to have large, iconic, unique buildings being proposed. Then, when they are, eventually they are changed to make curves, square, downsize projects, cheapen materials or take a cool design and make it ordinary. Hey, it's not like our city is overloaded with iconic structures.
Now imagine if you were a person who loved architecture and you bought a condo here because you loved the design and wanted to live in a great building. How would you feel? Hell, I'm pissed now and I don't have anything invested here. What irks me is the way business is done in this town. How can a deal just be changed like that? If the museum fell through, it was supposed to be leased as commercial and retail space, to possibly be used for public purposes at a later time. Was that all just a scam from the get go? Was this actually the real intention? It's so devious. WTF? I will be calling my local councillor to vent. That tower now looks ridiculous at the base. It needs that podium. Forget that public square, we have a park just steps away. This just sucks!:ohno::ohno::ohno: I hope this is just a bad rumor.

Uhmmm... just a note here. Marcanadian's version is not the proposed one, and in all fairness I sincerely doubt Libeskind would finish it like that. Far better to wait for the final proposal, park and all, and then we can make a judgement.

Libeskind must be really dejected. I imagine the most difficult part of being an architect is having ones vision downgraded, bludgeoned, or watered down. The architect who designed the Bell Lightbox is facing the same assault to his creation, but not as severe as this one.

I'll have to wait and let this unfold, but this is one building design I hoped would be spared such indignity. Disappointing. Very disappointing.

Is the design change a sure 100% sure thing?

Staff only submitted their report on 22 September so doubt council has had a go at it. It's in Pam McConnell's ward. She might not like the new proposal.

For the most part I don't think people will care about change in the podium ... most non UT forumrs and alike that is : - )

If this was just a box (tower) rising from a larger/smaller box (podium), then I could see people not caring but the podium on this development was significant/integral to the design.

I mean the development was called the "L" tower for a reason ...


-------

I want to throw up.

What are these poeple, retarded??? I mean you actually pay taxes which pay these bums salaries. Every good proposal in Toronto gets its legs kicked out in favour of the "Cityplace boxes". Sad :(

the designer of this tower is trying to challenge those people with weak nerves. unfortunately, i'm one among them. hope it won't get built.

[QUOTE=isaidso;25990686]The architect who designed the Bell Lightbox is facing the same assault to his creation, but not as severe as this one.QUOTE]

I didn't know that. What are they changing?

I'm pretty unhappy that L Tower has been circumcised but it is still an attractive tower.

This building had the potential to break the Toronto Box myth wide open.

[QUOTE=isaidso;25990686]The architect who designed the Bell Lightbox is facing the same assault to his creation, but not as severe as this one.QUOTE]

I didn't know that. What are they changing?

The architect wants the ramp and rooftop of the podium to be accessible to the public, while the developer wants it to be an exclusive domain of a selected few. The building would probably look much the same, but you and I won't be allowed in there.

The architect wanted this to be a building for Torontonians, not one that will only be enjoyed by a few people.

I think we have become too spoiled during this boom . We been helluva lucky to witness so many exceptional proposal come to fruition. First and foremost, this is a business venture. We can't expect developers to deliver on space which could send them to the poorhouse or the cash strapped city to step in and foot the entire bill to appease us.

Now imagine if you were a person who loved architecture and you bought a condo here because you loved the design and wanted to live in a great building. How would you feel?

The purchaser should of done his homework to know that the podium is an entirely separate entity completely reliant on donations (that never materialized)

Why was it changed?

finally, worse comes to worst!

The purchaser should of done his homework to know that the podium is an entirely separate entity completely reliant on donations (that never materialized)

Of course, the Podium wasn't part of the condo tower but it's what made the tower iconic. People buying here expected it to be part of the tower. For those who were not just investors, but who actually bought here because they loved the design, they must be really pissed. I can understand small changes but this completely changes how it relates to the street and it's what really made this tower stand out. (other than the pointed top. I wouldn't be surprised if that changes too)
Wasn't the whole point of building this tower, to help pay for part of the museum in the podium? If the whole museum is gone and the podium will not be going for any public uses, why are we even letting them build the condo tower on city land? It's not like it's on private land. The Sony Centre belongs to the city of Toronto. The deal was the condo gets built to help finance the public museum and the Sony Theatre. The plan for the podium was, if they could not raise enough money to play for the museum part, the podium space would be leased for commercial space, retail space or city uses, then possibly turned into the museum, if they got the money later on. (when there is a more culture friendly government) They all knew Harper was not going to give them money for a new museum. Now all that is cancelled and it's going to be just more condos, so it only benefits the condo developer.
If this was a completely privately owned parcel of land, it would be fine. The fact that it's city owned land, changes the whole thing. It was known from the beginning, that the odds of getting money from the feds, was quite low. So was this just one big scam from the beginning, to get this approved as a condo? Is it the condo developer scamming us or is it the city trying to pull a fast one on the people? It's shit like this that happens all the time and makes everybody skeptical. Then our politicians wonder why Torontonians are so cynical about this city and things like the waterfront development. Whenever a great new proposal for a building comes along, people are always expecting it to be changed to an ordinary building. We all know how this game is played in Toronto and with each cheap out, we all get just a little more cynical.
Sheesh, sometimes it's really hard to feel good about this town.:ohno:

From the Star:


Arts complex axed from Sony Centre skyscraper
CARLOS OSORIO/TORONTO STAR
Oct 03, 2008 04:30 AM

Say goodbye to the idea of a $75 million Arts & Heritage Awareness complex linking the Sony Centre for the Performing Arts to Daniel Libeskind's sleek 49-storey condo skyscraper, soon to rise on the southeast corner of Sony's land at Yonge and Front Sts.

Instead, an enticing public plaza is to be built at the key intersection, on the street level next to the entrance of the historic Toronto show palace, also designed by Libeskind.

That is the revised proposal going Monday to Toronto city council's executive committee, after support needed from the federal and provincial governments ($22 million each) failed to come through.

"This new plaza will be like a large park in the heart of the city," Sony Centre CEO Dan Brambilla said yesterday. "We're still working on ideas, but we'll probably have a fountain. We want it to be animated all day long, throughout the year.

"There will be food services in the theatre lobby, open all day. This will be a great open space, like New York City's Lincoln Center plaza, with beautiful landscaping where people can stroll and meet and relax."

Other possible features include a sophisticated image projection system and a skating rink.

As a result, Libeskind's so-called L Tower, which resembled the map of Italy, will lose its toe. The tower, to be built by Castlepoint Realty Partners, will have additional condo units on the lower eight storeys that previously had been devoted to the arts and heritage centre.

The plaza will occupy a rectangle of open space more than 15 metres wide and 45 metres deep on land now used for a terrace at below-grade level, now accessible only from the theatre's lower lobby, as well as a parking area.

Libeskind's plan, originally unveiled in 2005, featured an eight-storey podium at the base of the tower (at Yonge St. and The Esplanade). That podium extended at a height of eight storeys and joined the tower to existing Sony Centre.

Brambilla's dreamed-of cultural centre would have included an interactive arts lab about the arts history of Toronto's multicultural communities, as well as a concierge service, video cabaret space and banquet facility.

Partly because of three elections in as many years, Brambilla encountered glitches several times just as a deal seemed imminent. Two weeks ago, he ran out of time.

Under the agreement between Sony and Castlepoint, there was a Plan B. If Brambilla could not raise the money by Sept. 15, the podium would still be built and the developer would be allowed to use it as retail space; then after 15 years the city would have a chance to buy the space back.

"As the deadline approached, we realized it would make more sense to have a plaza," Brambilla says.

The Sony Centre is owned by the city but run as an arm's-length agency with an independent board.

If the revised proposal wins approval from the executive committee, it will go to the full city council. It has already been endorsed by City Hall staff, and in July council indicated it would give it a favourable reception when it asked Sony to explore the possibility and return with a detailed proposal.

As part of revised deal, Castlepoint would pay an extra $3.5 million as well as the originally agreed $15 million. Construction on the tower will begin in a few months.

I agree with Valantino. People have been totally spoiled by the boom in Toronto. This $75 million Arts & Heritage Awareness complex seems to have failed because it was of questionable need, and rather vague in purpose. Philanthropists in this city have stepped forward in the past decade and the city's cultural institutions are being reinvented at a breathtaking rate (and I will point out here that rather than having the "cheapest" philanthropists in the country, Toronto has by a longshot been the national leader in this cultural renewal- pretty much leaving all the other cities in the dust). Really, surely there could have been a better proposal for the complex than the Arts and Heritage Awareness complex. Maybe a really good modern art gallery, or a City of Toronto Museum, or a top notch Institue of Design.. something people could visualize and get their teeth into.

Trying to please people in this city seems an impossible task. There is little acknowledgement of success, and a gleeful celebration of failure. Had this project been completed as designed, the same chorus of ridicule would probably have greeted it that met his ROM project. Had I been Libeskind, I would have given this city a wide berth.

I recall that when the original proposal and rendering was first put forward, quite a few people condemned the podium for being awkward and disrespectful of Dickinson's masterpiece next door (I think John Barber in a recent article aptly described the image of a "boot" crushing the building into the ground). I must say I agree with this sentiment, and was never really fond of the base.

Having said that, the makeshift rendering certainly makes the truncated podium look inelegant and awkward. I realize that whoever whipped it up did a commendable effort based on a simple silhouette drawing; hopefully the official rendering will reveal a more graceful podium.

whether you liked or disliked the base the reality is that the land their IS NOT BIG enough to have a park that could hold more then 10 people. There simply isnt enough land. To pretend that this will ever become a destination park is a JOKE.

^^ I agree. There is a larger park across the street called Berczy park that is horrible underused. They have a fountain there for Mr. Brambilla to go crazy for.

whether you liked or disliked the base the reality is that the land their IS NOT BIG enough to have a park that could hold more then 10 people. There simply isnt enough land. To pretend that this will ever become a destination park is a JOKE.

The plaza will occupy a rectangle of open space more than 15 metres wide and 45 metres deep

Yes, that looks to be a very small pocket park.

I am hoping Libeskind will do something creative at the podium with the smaller footprint he now has to work with.

Why not have something like this?

http://i35.************/65o2sz.jpg

This keeps the 'toe' portion of the tower and also implements the public plaza (at least the majority of it). Of course I guess people would complain about the 'overhang' from the toe portion, but at least that would create some shade. I don't know why they have to cut the toe section that is connected on top of the Sony Centre anyway (or is it suspended? It's hard to tell).

Its not an issue of there needing to be a public square. If you read the article above, it says the podium has been modified because the arts centre planned for it could not obtain funding.


^^ I agree. There is a larger park across the street called Berczy park that is horrible underused. They have a fountain there for Mr. Brambilla to go crazy for.

This fountain is simply making the best of a bad situation. Or would you prefer this park to be barren concrete?


I am hoping Libeskind will do something creative at the podium with the smaller footprint he now has to work with.

I certainly imagine he will. Its obviously not going to be a continuation of the facade straight to the ground. I'm guessing it'll look similar to the present design, just without elongated northern portion.

whats disapointing is not so much that the building is being severly compromised which is something that we will all adjust to....

I think whats worse is that the building was meant to be a icon on one of our most important streets in TORONTO. Younge street needs new blood. THIS building AURA and 1 Bloor were all contributors to fixing the mess. Instead of a fix though we get a plain old condominium that doesnt add anything relevant to the city. If this building were in north york scarborough or etobicoke it honestly wouldnt be that big of a deal. BUT ITS NOT. Its suppose to be apart of a downtown renosance instead it looks like a typical suburbian or city place or pinnacle glass box.

Couldn't they simply build the podium as a shell? I'm sure they could find a myriad uses for it besides it's original purpose.

agreed

Couldn't they simply build the podium as a shell? I'm sure they could find a myriad uses for it besides it's original purpose.

A giant glass atrium with some stores would be nice, but then again, I bet people would complain that it would be too much of a 'mall' and ruin local business. Can't win either way.

Its not an issue of there needing to be a public square. If you read the article above, it says the podium has been modified because the arts centre planned for it could not obtain funding.


True, but originally, Plan B would have converted the podium into retail/commercial space, even if Brambilla couldn't have raised the funds by the deadline. It was his and the Sony Centre board's choice to implement a public plaza because it "made more sense".

I would love having a public plaza if it didn't mean destroying my favourite Toronto development. I just hope the new renders and plans can sway my opinion.

honestly with the weather in toronto Malls are a favourite of mine... YES I love queen street and Yorkville is NICE but eaton centre gets sooo much attention simply because ITS INDOORS and it snows 5 months of the year.

^^I'd rather be out on Yonge Street shopping in -20C than inside a mall. I hate malls with a passion. Can you imagine how amazing ALL of downtown would be without the underground city. All those stores at street level!!!! Would be fantastic. King and Bay lined for blocks in every direction with great retail and the streets hopping with human activity. That's what cities are all about. It's what makes London and Tokyo so rich with activity: high street shopping. People on the streets.

There's a reason I don't live or go to the suburbs. Malls ruin it all. I live downtown to escape malls and the devastation to street life that they bring. If I was an earthworm I wouldn't mind living underground in a cave, but I'm not. Many people seem to love the underground city. I despise it. It has done more harm to the city than the Gardiner.

whatever Im practical. I live at king and University and I LOVE the underground PATH.. I wish it was expanded. Today I felt like I lived in either Moscow or the antarctic. Re invent the mall I dont care just make it inside. Why cant we have european like shops in a indoor setting. cobblestone indoor, why NOT? How about a indoor public space.. Not A MALL. Not a Food court but a genuine public space.

That's what Mississauga is for. You call it practical, I call it an vicious assault on the fabric of the city that will sanitize the city experience devastate our streetscapes.

City people flee places like that to city cores in search of vibrant city streets. I'll fight an expansion of the PATH every bloody inch of the way because I'll be damned if people try and turn downtown into a boring indoor amusement park. Thank god for Yonge Street. Thank god for Yorkville. Thank god for Bloor. Thank god for Queen Street. These streets are what makes downtown amazing and you want to turn it into a shopping mall so that you can keep your sensitive little bum warmer. Good grief!

I hope they ban any more malls downtown. Isn't it enough that you've got Mississauga, North York, Etobicoke, and Scarborough. Now you want downtown Toronto turned into a boring coma inducing hell hole too?

:ohno:

whatever Im practical. I live at king and University and I LOVE the underground PATH.. I wish it was expanded. Today I felt like I lived in either Moscow or the antarctic. Re invent the mall I dont care just make it inside. Why cant we have european like shops in a indoor setting. cobblestone indoor, why NOT? How about a indoor public space.. Not A MALL. Not a Food court but a genuine public space.

Whaaaaaaaaaaaa? Today wasn't cold. If you think this is the antarctic, I'll send you there for some re-education...

And seriously, indoor spaces? Don't you find them incredibly Disney? Incredibly fake? These types of ideas is what Dubai is for.

^^I'd rather be out on Yonge Street shopping in -20C than inside a mall. I hate malls with a passion. Can you imagine how amazing ALL of downtown would be without the underground city. All those stores at street level!!!! Would be fantastic. King and Bay lined for blocks in every direction with great retail and the streets hopping with human activity. That's what cities are all about. It's what makes London and Tokyo so rich with activity: high street shopping. People on the streets.

There's a reason I don't live or go to the suburbs. Malls ruin it all. I live downtown to escape malls and the devastation to street life that they bring. If I was an earthworm I wouldn't mind living underground in a cave, but I'm not. Many people seem to love the underground city. I despise it. It has done more harm to the city than the Gardiner.

I totally agree. I like to keep the action above ground.
I think what bothers me most about the Sony Centre issue is the deception, how it will look and the precedence it will set. The developers & politicians obviously knew there was a good chance their arts centre proposal would not get funding. Their plan B included keeping the podium, as is and using it for commercial and retail purposes until the city was able to do something else with it. The plan was NEVER to get rid of the podium and the reason was, they knew many people would support the original, iconic tower. It's only now, after the tower is approved, that they now forget about their plan B. You know they had this plan all along. This is not something that just comes out of nowhere. I think all along they had planned to just chop the podium and turn the base into more condos. (higher profits)
If that was their plan, why weren't they just honest about it from the start?

The worse part is if it is allowed, it sets the tone for all other developers to do the same because they know it's how business is done in Toronto. We have this happening to a lesser extent, in many projects like Toronto Life Square but this is much more extreme. This time they are not just changing signage or materials, this is the whole look of the building at street level. I see it as a whole new proposal. It should have to go right back to square one and re-apply as a new tower. To just let them chop off the whole podium is just a travesty of the whole system. Why even have an approvals process if it is just going to be abused by developers who think they can out smart the city and it's citizens? I feel duped by the developers, the board of the Sony Centre (who approved the changes) and our politicians. These people have no respect, honesty or integrity.
I called Pam McConnell's office and of course, nobody knew about it. They acted like, who cares? Nobody could tell me what Pam thinks about all this. I was just told to leave a message for one of her assistants but I am not going to let this go. I will be on their ass until I get answers, even if I have to go there in person. This is not the way a city should be run. Somebody has to put these developers in their place. :bash: (and the politicians who seem to be in collusion)

It's good to know there are a lot of people like you who understand what makes the city vibrant and are willing to stand up for it. If we don't, developers and suburbanites will get there way and water this place down to suit there suburban tastes. We need a common front.

Do you know of any city groups that actively fight this kind of thing? I'm willing to put my time and effort where my mouth is.

^^I'd rather be out on Yonge Street shopping in -20C than inside a mall. I hate malls with a passion. Can you imagine how amazing ALL of downtown would be without the underground city. All those stores at street level!!!!

Many people seem to love the underground city. I despise it. It has done more harm to the city than the Gardiner.

If there were no PATH, additional street retail + pedestrian crowds would be negligible, except for the latter in the height of winter. Have you ever been down there? Really there aren't all that many people at any given time, unless the weather is awful (and I don't think you're preferences are fair to dictate that people must go above ground when it's -30 or in the middle of a rain storm). Generally, traveling via street is much easier. And the stores (none are the type to really add to the city's "atmosphere" anyway) exist to serve those people underground. If PATH were gone, existing street-level stores would be more than capable to handle the minimal increase in demand.

Also, you bring up Tokyo...but fail to realize just how common malls are there. An even better example would be Hong Kong. I'm sure you're familiar with just how crowded streets are there? Well, do you also know just how common malls are too? In other words, they can coexist just fine.

And by this logic, the subway has also done more harm to the city than the Gardiner. Those 1.2 million people could be walking instead. That would make the streets a little more vibrant. :)

If there were no PATH, additional street retail + pedestrian crowds would be negligible, except for the latter in the height of winter. Have you ever been down there? Really there aren't all that many people at any given time, unless the weather is awful (and I don't think you're preferences are fair to dictate that people must go above ground when it's -30 or in the middle of a rain storm). Generally, traveling via street is much easier. And the stores (none are the type to really add to the city's "atmosphere" anyway) exist to serve those people underground. If PATH were gone, existing street-level stores would be more than capable to handle the minimal increase in demand.

Well, I can't possibly agree with this, having worked in a PATH connected building. PATH is a street killer in Winter time. Summer, no. But PATH is absolutely packed with people the whole Winter long while the streets go dead.

^^I'd rather be out on Yonge Street shopping in -20C than inside a mall. I hate malls with a passion. Can you imagine how amazing ALL of downtown would be without the underground city. All those stores at street level!!!! Would be fantastic. King and Bay lined for blocks in every direction with great retail and the streets hopping with human activity. That's what cities are all about. It's what makes London and Tokyo so rich with activity: high street shopping. People on the streets.

There's a reason I don't live or go to the suburbs. Malls ruin it all. I live downtown to escape malls and the devastation to street life that they bring. If I was an earthworm I wouldn't mind living underground in a cave, but I'm not. Many people seem to love the underground city. I despise it. It has done more harm to the city than the Gardiner.

Tokyo has a ridiculous amount of malls and indoor/underground shopping. They also have a lot of covered shopping arcades, something that we don't do in Toronto. One of the biggest reasons probably is that neither Tokyo nor London get anywhere as close to as cold as Toronto does in the winter.

That said, even in Tokyo, the financial districts generally only have indoor 'mall' type shopping, and virtually no street level stores directly inside them, ditto from my quick walk through the City of London and Canary Wharf.

What is the big deal with the Sony Centre? It's not even a pretty building.

Do you know of any city groups that actively fight this kind of thing? I'm willing to put my time and effort where my mouth is.

you should start one...i think ppl would join

“Then there's the sad tale of the Sony Centre for the Performing Arts. If developers get their way, a 49-storey condo designed by architect Daniel Libeskind (he of the Royal Ontario Museum's Michael Lee-Chin Crystal), will be built on a sliver of land on the west side of the complex. The good news is that the bottom of Libeskind's boot-shaped tower has been killed. The bad news is that the top is still alive. The scheme has little to recommend it; architecturally it's pure kitsch. Even worse, it would compromise one of the best examples of 1960s design left standing in Toronto.”

Christopher Hume, Toronto Star Oct. 4, 2008

What is it about the architecture community in Toronto that is so afraid of change? Libeskind’s L Tower is a breath of fresh air, yet many prominent architects and architectural critics in this city slam it for it’s ‘kitsch’. How many more failed opportunities like the boring and conservative new Bay –Adelaide and RBC towers will be constructed before we finally realize how dull has become the dominant form of expression for large buildings in this city. The glass on these new towers is nice and shiny, fine. But the form is still the 70’s. The general population has been interested in breaking the mold for years. Witness the response to Yansong Ma’s Absolute tower in Mississauga. Of the six finalists, by far the least interesting was the Zeidler Partnership entry, not coincidentally, a Toronto firm.

Why has the architecture community in this city also risen up en masse against the ROM addition? Check the reviews of the Crystal written by critics from other countries and, by and large, they are extremely positive. Is the problem in Toronto that most of our architects and critics were educated by the same people, all of them modernists? They just can’t break out of their traditional mold. Perhaps they are afraid to appear to their friends and colleagues as embracing ‘kitsch’.

Or perhaps the fault really lies with the development community that keeps giving commissions to the same firms. How many Montages (a huge disappointment), Success Towers, Pinnacles, Buranos, Muranos, Pure Spirits, do we need? We are surrounded by green glass and pre-cast concrete boxes. Some of them work; Spire is a good example. It's architect, Peter Clewes is a star in this city. Unfortunately, he’s been repeating himself lately, designing variations on the same theme. He runs the risk of becoming run-of-the mill if he doesn’t start addressing alternative designs. How many more Jack Diamond ‘industrial’ buildings do we want cluttering our streets? A brick wall along the whole of the Richmond side of the Opera House! On a main street! It’s as if Diamond forgot that architecture is also about how a building addresses the streetscape. Do we forgive him because strict modernism allows this, that it is somehow coolly ‘Northern European”? The Opera house is more suited for a place near the airport. How different in exterior style is it, really, from his Jarvis Street Salvation Army building? Perhaps, a cheap shot, but deserved in my opinion.

Toronto has long been a modernist town. Developers embraced Mies van der Rohe and I.M Pei in the 60s and 70s and were applauded for their choices. However, enough is enough. More buildings like the L Tower will help revitalize a rather moribund architecture.

auburn, I agree with you 100%

So you'd rather not interupt a mundane centre for something unique? There are a million 60s slabs in the city already. The 60s was arguably the worst decade for architecture. Not much of it is worth salvaging.

The streetscape wasn't that great to begin with:
http://ftp.spine3d.com/~temp/demo/ltower/L%20Tower-Day-02b.jpg
The city should force them to tuck in either the bottom or the top part of the tower side of the podium so that you don't get a 50-storey wall bringing high-altitude winds down to street level and sweeping pedestrians off their feet. It doesn't help that these folks will also be looking at blank walls of translucent glass panels instead of retail/coffee shops on the ground floor.

Anyway with regards to the change... why couldn't they just keep the massing and use the area for residential? Iuno... put sky gardens into the circular cut and amenity at the street corner next to hummingbird centre? And don't they have to resubmit the design for approval?

I agree that this design is not streetscape or pedestrian friendly. His ROM design is not museum friendly neither. He admits that he did not design for ROM's collection, no wonder the collections look worse than before. The Chinese collection is one of the largest outside of China but now it looks like a department store display.

It's just too bucky ... I'll take a park / reduced podium over that.

I hope they'll make room for at least a few stores though.

I like it.. It has flair. And it had purpose. A park will have no purpose other then to have maybe 3 empty benches facing a incredibly busy street. Anyone who wants a park will walk over to the park with the fountain on front.. Much more peaceful. This place would have been GREAT. Whose anyone kidding anyway.. No one walks south on Yonge street anyway. Theirs nothing there. And nothing will be there except a new condo development. Yonge streets walking appeal probably starts north of King street. Maybe even Queen.

Maybe it wouldnt have been pedestrian friendly but at least it would have made a new destaination for the city.

Why not just purchase a different plot of land and build the tower as it was supposed to be?

auburn, I agree with you 100%

Ditto. The L-Tower was the only unique, sculptural and (genuinely) iconic building scheduled to go up in Toronto. But Toronto architecture critics (except for the re-born John Bentley Mays) don't like icons or sculptural forms of architecture. Christopher Hume is the worst. They all seem to think that because Toronto built a handful of modernist boxes in the 60s that we have to continue that trend forever. That's how a second-rate box-builder like Jack Diamond has managed to make a living in this city.

I'm amazed that some spectacularly unique buildings like OCAD or the ROM extension ever got built in this city. Something tells me that if Toronto had been approached with the Bilbao Guggenheim design, the architecture critics would have condemned it for being too wild and it would never have been built.

So sad. Just when you think something artistic might happen in this city, the money isn't there and the design gets butchered.

So sad. Just when you think something artistic might happen in this city, the money isn't there and the design gets butchered.

Before we all bitch about the "design being butchered", perhaps it would be fair to wait until we actually see the new design?

For all we know, it could turn out even better.

If there were no PATH, additional street retail + pedestrian crowds would be negligible, except for the latter in the height of winter. Have you ever been down there? Really there aren't all that many people at any given time, unless the weather is awful (and I don't think you're preferences are fair to dictate that people must go above ground when it's -30 or in the middle of a rain storm). Generally, traveling via street is much easier. And the stores (none are the type to really add to the city's "atmosphere" anyway) exist to serve those people underground. If PATH were gone, existing street-level stores would be more than capable to handle the minimal increase in demand.

Also, you bring up Tokyo...but fail to realize just how common malls are there. An even better example would be Hong Kong. I'm sure you're familiar with just how crowded streets are there? Well, do you also know just how common malls are too? In other words, they can coexist just fine.

And by this logic, the subway has also done more harm to the city than the Gardiner. Those 1.2 million people could be walking instead. That would make the streets a little more vibrant. :)

I'm very familiar with the PATH having worked in the CBD for a few years. If the PATH didn't exist, the 125,000 people who work in those towers would flock to the street to eat, buy neck ties, socialize, and get their haircuts. There are literally hundreds of stores down there that exist because of the monster demand those office workers create. If the PATH didn't exist, all that retail would line King/Bay for blocks and blocks in every direction.

I'm not dictating to anyone that they shouldn't shop in the PATH, but it's absurd to argue that the PATH hasn't drastically reduced activity on the street. Shopping centres kill street activity. That's just a plain fact. This brings us to the next point. Tokyo and Hong Kong.

I haven't failed to realize how many malls exist in these cities at all. The only reason these cities can maintain vibrant streets and shopping centres at the same time is because of the very high density. High density can support both. Look at the Eaton Centre. If it were in any other part of the city, the adjacent streets would be fairly devoid of human activity. Yonge Street can withstand the huge magnet that a shopping centre represents because of the sheer volume of people who go to Yonge Street. King and Bay can not. If the Eaton Centre wasn't there, you can bet they'd be another 5,000 people on that small stretch of Yonge Street south of Dundas.

Our CBD looks great, but it's a very sterile boring place compared to 'the City' in London. Why? The PATH!! London's financial district is packed with office workers enjoying a pint right out on the street, shopping for chocolates, flowers, getting haircuts, and a myriad of other activities. In Toronto, all of these activities occur in the subterranean caverns below.

The completion of several condo towers in the area should begin to reverse this negative effect of the PATH as stores begin to cater to a 24 hour resident population.

I'm very familiar with the PATH having worked in the CBD for a few years. If the PATH didn't exist, the 125,000 people who work in those towers would flock to the street to eat, buy neck ties, socialize, and get their haircuts. There are literally hundreds of stores down there that exist because of the monster demand those office workers create. If the PATH didn't exist, all that retail would line King/Bay for blocks and blocks in every direction.


Hundreds of stores? Like I said, wouldn't really have a huge impact on the streets in the grand scheme of things...at King & Bay however, it would, but whereabouts would they even go there? There isn't any room for stores at that location.

And again, it only caters to people working in the CBD, and certainly not all of those 125,000 people. So, even if we remove PATH, it would only make the CBD slightly more vibrant at only a few brief periods in the day - the morning and evening rush hours, and lunch hour.

So King & Bay could have blocks and blocks of Grand & Toy, The Source, and Food Courts? There isn't really that much of interest down there.

I agree that this design is not streetscape or pedestrian friendly. His ROM design is not museum friendly neither. He admits that he did not design for ROM's collection, no wonder the collections look worse than before. The Chinese collection is one of the largest outside of China but now it looks like a department store display.

Well put! The reality of this project is that it cannot (and probably never could have) been built to look like the renderings having sold out the building at $560/SF (Urbanation Q2.) To create the kind of skin on this building like in the renderings, sales at closer to $1000/SF would have been needed. This factor cannot be ignored in any discussion about this project because we are debating a fantasy, more reflective of a suburban developer's infatuation with a starchitect and his inexperience in developing downtown.

Notwithstanding some of the comments about the 1960's, the O'Keefe Centre (let's just go back to the original name), is an excellent building, in terms of massing, materials, and particularly urbanistically. Liebeskind's design (ignoring what it's doing to the O'Keefe) is a one-note caricature of a building, owing more to amusing the public with Elton John "boot" references than creating anything meaningful.

In the ROM, we didn't get a "crystal"; we got aluminum siding held up my millions of dollars of steel covered by badly detailed drywall. Why would anyone expect the "L" would be different? What we see in the renderings is not what we would get.

Hundreds of stores? Like I said, wouldn't really have a huge impact on the streets in the grand scheme of things...at King & Bay however, it would, but whereabouts would they even go there? There isn't any room for stores at that location.

And again, it only caters to people working in the CBD, and certainly not all of those 125,000 people. So, even if we remove PATH, it would only make the CBD slightly more vibrant at only a few brief periods in the day - the morning and evening rush hours, and lunch hour.

There are actually 1200 stores employing 5000 people, and it would have a massive impact if they were at street level. There isn't room for them at street level at King & Bay, but that wasn't the argument. The argument was that the PATH has sucked activity underground and the design of the buildings at street level dictates that it will probably always remain that way.

You are right that the area would only be busy during business hours, but this area is also developing into a full fledged neighbourhood. There was an article that circulated a few months ago regarding the drastic change taking place. Home to 125,000 workers, but only 1,500 residents. This isn't the downtown population, but the CBD resident population that stretches from Yonge to Simcoe, and Queen to Front. This resident population is set to increase 10 fold over the next 10 years with Trump, L Tower, Shangri-La, and more to come.

It will be interesting to see how much retail infill takes place or whether all of it will be placed below ground. Hard ware stores, drug stores, grocery stores, etc. Hard to picture, but they are all coming to this area due to the population explosion in the CBD.

http://www.toronto.ca/path/
I couldn't find that other article, but it was either Toronto Star, or Globe and Mail. It was discussed in one of the threads on SSC, but I can't find that either.

So King & Bay could have blocks and blocks of Grand & Toy, The Source, and Food Courts? There isn't really that much of interest down there.

That's exactly the point. It's completely dead because it's all in a mall buried underground. Street level activity is dead unlike places like 'The City' in London. That's a shame because if you've ever walked through that area of London, it's fantastic. There are thousands of people on the street all day long. They're enjoying a drink, having a sandwich, congregating on the corner, socializing, buying papers, buying gifts, etc. Ours is very sterile and empty because of PATH.

The CBD is anything but sterile and deserted during the day- it is filled with business people. At night it is no more deserted than "The City" or Canary Wharf in London, or Wall Street in New York City. Business centres exist for one reason, and one reason only, and they are never going to change over to entertainment and shopping districts once 5pm comes. I don't think underground paths in cities like Toronto and Montreal have robbed them of life, but personally I would never go underground to shop unless it was something extremely specific I was looking for.

^^I don't agree at all. Shopping centres, by their nature, suck activity off the street and into the enclosed space they occupy. Our CBD isn't deserted, but it's far less vibrant at street level than that famous square mile in London called 'The City'. It's not even close.

At night? Well, yes, they are both dead, but why can't it vibrant during the day? Our CBD doesn't have to be a full fledged entertainment/shopping districts ALL day long. Street activity is what makes a big city a great place or we'd all live in suburbia. We've got 125,000 people jam packed into this tiny area and we've funneled them all into a mall. I consider that a huge missed opportunity.

Every city adapts to its environment. London's winter temparatures are much more temperate than TO's.

But PATH is absolutely packed with people the whole Winter long while the streets go dead.

Might this say that people prefer not to freeze or get wet in the winter?

I would say your comment anwers the question in the affirmative.

Are you suggesting that we force people to suffer physical discomfort to satisfy some definition of "lively"?

I think the PATH is a big draw to living in downtown TO in the winter, versus suburbanites that have no choice regardless of the weather. It is lively and comfortable, now only during business hours, but as the resident population of the DT grows, I expect lively later into the evenings.

THAT IS NOT MY QUOTE! Where did you get that from? I think I've been the target of 'doctoring'. Someone has tampered with that. Please pm me so I can notify the moderator.

I understand that people want to escape cold weather, but it's places like Queen Street, Bloor Street, Yonge Street, and Yorkville that makes a city great. It certainly isn't any mall. PATH may be a draw for some people, but it's a big negative for others. I'd much rather shop outside in -20C than in a mall, and I know I'm not alone. I'm a big proponent of keeping malls out of downtown Toronto. Cold weather never stopped anyone from shopping Yorkville in December. Or Yonge, for that matter.

Well all I meant to say is that in the winter there are a ton of canadians that HATE the cold. Why dont we move somewhere warmer. For myself I grew up here. Theres free health care. Typically I like the government better then the states. Thats not the point tho. The path helps move people arround the city without getting cold. What I am asking is for more indoor retail to be built with style. Why cant we have a INDOOR public space. For instance convert Maple leaf gardens to a public space and we can have year round skating. Or instead of making every park out doors why not make a huge indoor park. It doesnt need to be a mall it can be simply a place for people to mingle or how about a indoor water park or theme park like west edminton mall. How about a public space that has walls that retract in the summer to get a breeze inside but then close to keep the cold out in the winter. The path doesnt take away from queen street or from bloor. The path is made mostly of food courts and mini versions of the gap and little bell stores. If it didnt exsist wed simply have (only naming quality stores) one extra gap one extra harry rosen one extra birks. I would argue that none of these stores would help make either of these above ground streets any more special. They are chain stores which everyones already familiar with. We need more unique stores above ground which I am NOT ARGUING with. Im simply saying that we need some more public space or retail indoors downtown. How bout we convert the BAY because that place is empty all most year round/.

Not to sure how we got on this subject but the Financial district is not devoid of life in off peak hours. It isn't as busy as other parts of downtown because that area does not have the attractions that other areas have. The culture center in this tower could have at least given the area something more to bring people in on off peak times and I think that is the real problem created by this.

Yorkville has so much personality to it that people just enjoy the area. By U of T you have the ROM, AGO and other small attractions. Further north from the FD you have Dundas Square and the Eaton's Center. East you have St. Lawrence Market and the Hummingbird Center.

All this talk of climate and PATH are somewhat irrelevant.

Especially when you consider that during the morning rush both the sidewalks and PATH tend to be busy at the same time.

There are people many people who are largely put off by the weather like myself. (The climate is sufficiently enough to my dislike that I do plan to move as someone here suggested. There are lots of nice places that offer good government services in better climes which was not always the case. There are still obstacles but they should decrease over time.)

THAT IS NOT MY QUOTE! Where did you get that from? I think I've been the target of 'doctoring'. Someone has tampered with that.

My mistake isaidso!
Quote was taken from post by salvius.
My apology!

It is difficult, and probably futile to compare Toronto's CBD to London( a city which is more than twice the size of Toronto), and New York and Tokyo (which are almost four times the size of Toronto). Naturally all of those cities are going to have more people downtown than Toronto. It will look especially crowded in London with its narrower streets. The underground malls here in the business section are there to service the workers in the towers. There is no way retail space could afford to rent at street level at King and Bay. Nor on Wall Street. Fact of life. Building underground allows retail that simply would not be there otherwise, and probably attracts more people in the winter than normally would go down there. As for the CBD being dead at night... that is rather normal for business districts, as the workers stream home.

it's places like Queen Street, Bloor Street, Yonge Street, and Yorkville that makes a city great...Cold weather never stopped anyone from shopping Yorkville in December. Or Yonge, for that matter.

Precisely why eliminating PATH is irrelevant. It will make a few streets in the financial district have a bit more activity for a few hours a day for a few months a year. The REAL shopping districts will remain unaffected.

Though, there really isn't anything inherently bad about PATH anyway. I too, prefer to be outside, but if others would rather be underground, so what? Its not environmentally unsustainable, or unhealthy, and it doesn't cause sprawl or increased auto usage or anything of the sort...its essentially no different from the street above except for the lack of fresh air.

I suppose it boils down to what you want your ideal city to look like. Mine seems to differ somewhat from you want for Toronto. I savour high streets over malls by a very large margin. Office workers in the CBD should at least have the option of not having to go underground in search of services. The CBD is very heavily skewed in favour of the mall option.

My mistake isaidso!
Quote was taken from post by salvius.
My apology!

No worries. :cheers1:

anybody who doesn't like PATH has never seen the Goonies.

I think any city planner will look back at PATH as a mistake, as is the scattered attempt at +15 near city hall. Pretty much any above-grade or below-grade mall in North American densities won't work. That said, it is kinda nice to have in the cold climate, and it lays the groundwork for a denser Toronto, where above-ground street retail can co-exist just as successfully, as long as they stop building things like Eaton Centre, and do finer-scaled street-front retail podiums for all future towers. Unfortunately we don't seem to be going in that direction yet.

As long as we have the climate that we have in Canada, underground malls make perfect sense. We don't have the luxury of playing by the same set of rules as warm
climates.

I never really appreciated the PATH until this summer when it was constantly pouring. I think it's a great little luxury to have.

As far as on-street life. Toronto will get denser. People are coming in by the boatload.

my favourite thing about the PATH other than helping us stay warm or dry is that it is CLEAN!!!! Not only that but I am frusterated walking down king street past the supposive walk of fame looking at rocks or blocks coming up from the sidewalk that are rarely fixed. Or when they are fixed instead of the nice tiled blocks that were once there is replaced with cheap pavement. The sidewalks in the city are worn out. I know it might be because of the weather but its deffinately less than appealing. When I was in NEW YORK this summer (Manhatten, so I have no idea about the rest of the city) The sidewalks and buildings looked all well maintained. Infact it felt like every other building in NEW YORK was under restoration. This is completly opposite of Toronto where other then the Bay building and Old city hall buildings generally speaking are ignored and depreciate until they are no longer salvagable and are torn down. The townhouses on Charles street is an example. The building that is finally being restored at the Shangrila sight. Maple Leaf Guardens. ANYWAYS back to my original comment the PATH is clean and well maintained our streets and sidewalks are not. Its embarressing..

In the ROM, we didn't get a "crystal"; we got aluminum siding held up my millions of dollars of steel covered by badly detailed drywall. Why would anyone expect the "L" would be different? What we see in the renderings is not what we would get.

It should be pointed out that the term "crystal" was intended to refer to the crystalline shape of the building. At no point was the building's exterior intended to be completely glazed (let's remember this is a museum, and light damages the artifacts). The original proposal was for 50% glazing, but that allowed too much sun so it was reduced to the final 30% figure. The choice of the word "Crystal" was perhaps unfortunate, as many people seem to have interpreted this to mean the building would be all glass.
Libesind's work is unlike any other projects in Toronto.. I am happy that he has added the ROM to our city, even if it is not as safe, sensible and efficiently space planned as would have been done otherwise, because sometimes all the "sensible" in the world just doesn't have a spark.

Don't we already have enough glass buildings in this city anyway?


I suppose it boils down to what you want your ideal city to look like. Mine seems to differ somewhat from you want for Toronto. I savour high streets over malls by a very large margin. Office workers in the CBD should at least have the option of not having to go underground in search of services.

Where did I say I like malls? Had you read my post, I specified a dislike of them as well.

And in any case, the workers have no more than a few blocks to go for a high density of retail services. Having these businesses in the bases of the office towers at King & Bay would serve to be not much different than having them underground (ie. they wouldn't have to go outside), not to mention that it would compromise the architectural integrity of the existing buildings. I'd rather not see the likes of Commerce Court North butchered with a Tim Horton's on the bottom.


Pretty much any above-grade or below-grade mall in North American densities won't work.

While North American metros as a whole tend to be of a lower density than their Old World counterparts, the densities that can be found in the likes of central Toronto or Montreal or New York are no lower than what exists in central Tokyo. And as we can see with the success of malls centred around subway stations, with the success of the adjacent commercial streets, they can coexist here. The difference comes from being unable to support malls in suburban TO.

bravo, monkeyronin. :)

well said.

Where did I say I like malls? Had you read my post, I specified a dislike of them as well.

And in any case, the workers have no more than a few blocks to go for a high density of retail services. Having these businesses in the bases of the office towers at King & Bay would serve to be not much different than having them underground (ie. they wouldn't have to go outside), not to mention that it would compromise the architectural integrity of the existing buildings. I'd rather not see the likes of Commerce Court North butchered with a Tim Horton's on the bottom.


I may have insinuated that you like malls, but that wasn't the intent. I was merely stating that I don't like them. You do, however, have a greater tolerance for them than I seem to have.

Your second paragraph cements my previous conviction. Your ideal city looks different than mine. I also mentioned that King & Bay wasn't designed to accommodate high street shopping and we will probably never end up with much in the area because of this. I don't want to butcher Commerce Court North either, but again, I'll repeat, THAT WAS NOT MY ARGUMENT.

My argument was that the PATH has sucked activity below ground. Nothing more, nothing less. Do I want a Tim Horton's in front of TD Centre? No. Do I want a Shoppers in front of FCP? No. Has the PATH sucked activity below ground and made the street life far less interesting? Yes. Do I think our CBD looks good? Yes. Do I like the way the CBD has been designed that forces people to go below ground or 4 blocks over? No.

It seems necessary to repeat it again. We like different things.

We cant simply adopt the same systems as the rest of the world cities, we live in a country with specific challenges, hence the temperature in the winter.

Path may be a mall, but it is used as refuge from the weather in the winter months, that slows the street life a little, but its better for the liveability of the city to have it.

Like was previously said, it sucks life out off of the streets in the winter, well who the hell wants to be stuck in a wind tunnel in -30 weather, or on the streets period in the winter.

face it we cant be like new york and london or tokyo, but we shouldnt want to be, path is an incentive to live downtown, because if you live downtown, you dont have to face the weather. that is innovative and useful for our particular situation.

I would share your dislike for path if it sucked life from the summer months but it doesnt, the summer months path looses all of its customers. the only ecplination is that perople dont care what shops there are down there because otherwise they would go all year round, they like the heaters folks.

It's been PATH instead of high street though. I wouldn't be as concerned if it was been done in conjunction with high street. There's no choice other than to go underground for food, clothing, gifts, etc.

Did anyone notice that on urbantoronto, the L Tower thread has been changed to the I Tower thread?

I think any city planner will look back at PATH as a mistake, as is the scattered attempt at +15 near city hall. Pretty much any above-grade or below-grade mall in North American densities won't work. That said, it is kinda nice to have in the cold climate, and it lays the groundwork for a denser Toronto, where above-ground street retail can co-exist just as successfully, as long as they stop building things like Eaton Centre, and do finer-scaled street-front retail podiums for all future towers. Unfortunately we don't seem to be going in that direction yet.

... well you don't live in Toronto .. so your opinion is less informed.

Path essentially doubles the capacity of Toronto streets - allowing for higher density levels long term.

Path is far more complete and logical vs. +15

As for Eaton Centre - had it not been built it would have resulted in the decline of downtown Toronto. With it's construction it gave downtown residents the same lifestyle/luxuries of the suburbs (1970's).

Path takes a vast majority of the 200,000 Go Transit riders - and safely - all year around takes these people right to the base of their place of employment. I don't know how that could be a bad thing.

^^ He doesn't have to live in Toronto to understand the effect of a mall on street level infrastructure and activity. I doubt downtown Toronto would have gone into decline if Eaton Centre were not built. You're assuming downtown people want a suburban lifestyle. I'd argue that quite the opposite is true. It's certainly not why I live downtown. I'm here so I don't ever have to step foot in a mall ever again.

dleung: PATH is a mistake because it supplanted the 'high street'. If it was built in unison with the high street it would have been a benefit. It's a design flaw as far as I'm concerned; one that isn't fixable.

We can say that the Eaton's center has been a negative pull away from the streets but we must also recognize that the intersection of Dundas and Yonge is the busiest pedestrian area in the country. Granted Path does not have a large presence there but the point is made.

Toronto's streets would be totally overwhelmed if it were not for path as well. Path in addition to keeping the sidewalks clear also keeps people and cars apart improving safety.

that's for sure...the financial district really does need the PATH - though definitely not all of the retail that comes along with it.

We can say that the Eaton's center has been a negative pull away from the streets but we must also recognize that the intersection of Dundas and Yonge is the busiest pedestrian area in the country. Granted Path does not have a large presence there but the point is made.

Toronto's streets would be totally overwhelmed if it were not for path as well. Path in addition to keeping the sidewalks clear also keeps people and cars apart improving safety.

The difference with the PATH at Yonge and Dundas is that they built a high street as well. The PATH compliments the high street. It doesn't replace it.

Talking about the CBD district around King and Bay, PATH is the only option for retail... that land on Bay Street and surrounding environs has sky high rental, and there isn't a snowball's chance in hell that it could accomodate retail, in exactly the same situation as Wall Street. You are never going to see a Walmart go up beside the New York Stock Exchange. In my opinion in the office area of CBD, PATH is not sucking the life out of the area, it is merely servicing the office workers above. Many of them have to come and go to the underground subway, anyway. I loathe malls as much as the anyone, but I think there is a time and place for undergroung paths. I'm as guilty as the next person and when it is bitterly cold I'll nip through Atrium on Bay instead of trudging down the street just to thaw out, but I avoid malls and underground paths if at all possible. Street level shopping, where possible, is always more interesting to me.

Talking about the CBD district around King and Bay, PATH is the only option for retail... that land on Bay Street and surrounding environs has sky high rental, and there isn't a snowball's chance in hell that it could accomodate retail, in exactly the same situation as Wall Street.

Yes, it's far too late to change it now. I believe that is dleung's argument. It's mine as well. I do like what it looks like at street level, but find the street activity in this area sterile and lacking. From a city planning perspective, I agree that it will be looked at as a mistake. At the very least, some of it should have been designed to accommodate cafes, pubs, retail so that people don't have to abandon the street in June to conduct every day activities.

I'm not that familiar with Wall Street, but I'm under the impression that even there, office workers have the option to remain outside. They don't all head underground. The climate argument is full of holes. Yes, it's more comfortable in our climate, but we still should provide BOTH options. It's the high streets that make Toronto fabulous, not things like Yorkdale. The Eaton Centre area works because there is BOTH. In the CBD, they opted for a 'Yorkdale' solution.

Too late to change it now, but I agree with dleung 100%.

I for one do not believe that PATH is a mistake. I couldn't believe this but when I was abroad someone said they wanted to visit Toronto to see it because they could not believe that we had created some underground city under the tallest buildings.

The PATH started simple but is an ingenious idea really. The CBD will never have the residential to hold up many stores. I have visited Wall St, dead, just the same. I have also visited the City in London, yes a few stores more than we have but it was totally desterted on a weekend, I was the only person in sight, the same with when I was at Wall st. While yes a few stores could do some good, we should not discount the total success that PATH is.

The question that we are not asking is, why do we need people on the street, to satisfy the few people of this forum? because Jane Jacobs says its a good idea?

The fact that nobody lives their lends credence to the fact that a flurry of stores at st. level would flounder. The stores in the CBD are for people taking transit and are in a hurry, a quick pick me up. Nobody is going to travel out of there way to go to a cafe in the CBD after 5 or on a weekend when many better options surround their own household. Who wants to travel to near where they work for the same thing close to home? Its the perfect medium. Only more residential would make more stores viable in the CBD, nothing else.

Thinks about this for a second, if it was viable to have stores on the street in the CBD, and with the amount of the workforce there, don't you think someone would have been there already?

I'm not saying that PATH is a mistake, but that PATH in the CBD was a mistake because it's the only option there. The PATH should always be looked at as something that compliments the street, not replaces it.

The way the CBD was designed is a mistake because 'the street' was replaced and put underground. The PATH should alleviate surface congestion and offer an option during winter. The design is flawed because it wasn't built to respect these parameters.

Talking about the CBD district around King and Bay, PATH is the only option for retail... that land on Bay Street and surrounding environs has sky high rental, and there isn't a snowball's chance in hell that it could accomodate retail, in exactly the same situation as Wall Street. You are never going to see a Walmart go up beside the New York Stock Exchange. In my opinion in the office area of CBD, PATH is not sucking the life out of the area, it is merely servicing the office workers above. Many of them have to come and go to the underground subway, anyway. I loathe malls as much as the anyone, but I think there is a time and place for undergroung paths. I'm as guilty as the next person and when it is bitterly cold I'll nip through Atrium on Bay instead of trudging down the street just to thaw out, but I avoid malls and underground paths if at all possible. Street level shopping, where possible, is always more interesting to me.

.... exactly. And any nice day won't keep people in tunnels.

I'm not saying that PATH is a mistake, but that PATH in the CBD was a mistake because it's the only option there. The PATH should always be looked at as something that compliments the street, not replaces it.

The way the CBD was designed is a mistake because 'the street' was replaced and put underground. The PATH should alleviate surface congestion and offer an option during winter. The design is flawed because it wasn't built to respect these parameters.

... I don't know where you think all the retail that's in the Path - including food courts would go??

The ground level of any office tower is full of a lot of building services - and not much space for a few shops.

The Path facilitiates the efficient movement of people - that's a good thing.

Wall Street, while having some different architecture, is very similar to the Bay/King area. Flooded with office workers during the day, and deserted at night and weekends. This is pretty much true of any powerful CBD that I have visited.. once the office workers go, that's it till tomorrow. And Wall St is way too valuable land for street level retail. In fact, finding a pharmacy or a convenience store in many parts of Manhattan is a trial.

^^ It's not the hours of operation that is at issue. All stores close at some hour and then the streets become quiet. It's that the stores at street level don't exist at all. If Wall Street is devoid of amenities on the street, then they've made the same mistake as well. Surely, we aren't going to digress into doing things because other people do it like that.

... I don't know where you think all the retail that's in the Path - including food courts would go??


I believe I've stated at least 4 times that it's too late to change now, hence a design flaw. Do you not understand what that sentence means? It's a flaw because we're stuck with only ever having a mall in that area. There! I've said it forwards, and now backwards. I don't speak German or Japanese, so if you don't understand, this 'discussion' is pointless. We can't change it. There! Now I've said it 3 ways in one paragraph. Good grief!

Wall Street, while having some different architecture, is very similar to the Bay/King area. Flooded with office workers during the day, and deserted at night and weekends.
Basically what isaidso said... yeah, don't copy Manhattan, that place isn't perfect.

... well you don't live in Toronto .. so your opinion is less informed.
Uh, that's nice. I study planning in KW area so we visit Toronto frequently for research, and for examples of what not to do.

Path essentially doubles the capacity of Toronto streets - allowing for higher density levels long term.
In the long term, PATH will merely get crowded, and all of us here have already established that it's too late to put anything above ground, so Toronto's street capacity is the same as another city's where their retail is on street level.

Path is far more complete and logical vs. +15
There's no difference in the concept, except with +15 you have natural light. Both are essentially giant malls, only that Toronto's is very extensive and has become a viable way to get around, whereas the +15's in other cities aren't.

As for Eaton Centre... With it's construction it gave downtown residents the same lifestyle/luxuries of the suburbs (1970's).
Not a good thing.

....any nice day won't keep people in tunnels.
Not if there's nothing to do outside.

The Path facilitiates the efficient movement of people - that's a good thing.
Not necessarily. A busy street with slow moving traffic and crowds of people milling about is more vibrant than one with wide avenues but no venues, where you see cars whizzing by or the fleeting shadows of people disappearing from one building to the next. More than once I've caused collisions and human pile ups in the PATH just by slowing down. High-speed pedestrians should adopt a 2-second reaction time just like on freeways... no tailgating plz. In fact there should be a fast lane and a HOV lane for families and strollers.

Wall St is way too valuable land for street level retail.

The ground level of any office tower is full of a lot of building services - and not much space for a few shops.

Now that's a bigger waste of valuable land.

What cities should do is overbuild their underground parking such that the upper levels can be converted to underground retail in the future when the density calls for it, so that the only digging needed will be under the streets for connections in between. Or build the first few floors of offices with future retail in mind.

Basically what isaidso said... yeah, don't copy Manhattan, that place isn't perfect.



What cities should do is overbuild their underground parking such that the upper levels can be converted to underground retail in the future when the density calls for it, so that the only digging needed will be under the streets for connections in between. Or build the first few floors of offices with future retail in mind.

It is not a case of copying Manhattan (in fact I don't know anything about the underground of the CBD of Lower Manhattan), and in my opinion it is not a case of bad planning. In fact I think it is good planning to have shopping below grade in an area where it would be unfeasible to afford to open shops at grade level. In a city with our harsh winter weather I will go one step further and say what we have underground below the financial district is a case of spectacularily good city planning. I think it would be unrealistic to imagine that retail could somehow be built at grade, or that it was a missed opportunity. It would be like saying a convenience store, or a youth hostel should have gone in beside Prada on Bloor Street instead of expanding Prada. T'aint gonna happen. I love street level shopping. I do not like malls and I do not like shopping below grade unless it is a shop I cannot access anywhere else. But I also realize that in a financial centre there is going to be a priority for rentable space. Rather than have no shopping at all, an underground mall is the perfect solution. As well, as I mentioned, many people have to go underground for the subway or to go to GO trains anyway.

As for more levels below an office tower, I don't see how that would be better than a seamless one level shopping plaza beneath the street level.

Didn't all that underground retail and all the underground food courts exist BEFORE PATH anyway? The purpose of all that retail and food is so that people working in the tower could grab a quick bite to eat and maybe also do some shopping during their lunch hour. While First Canadian Place and Brookfield place decided to put some of that at ground level as well, basically every other tower has it only underground.

PATH merely connected all of that together. I wouldn't blame PATH for what we have now.

That said, I would also doubt the utility of having street-level retail/restaurants, because the main customers for such are the office workers themselves, and I'm sure most would rather stay indoors during lunch then go out in the rain/snow/cold. This is true for Toronto, true for La Defense (Paris), true for London, true for NYC, true for Hong Kong, true for any other major city with a real CBD.

^^ We're saying that the urban planning decisions above are the mistake. PATH is fine if it doesn't replace the street. In this case, it has.
Basically what isaidso said... yeah, don't copy Manhattan, that place isn't perfect.

>>>>>>>>> :weird: (an argument followed by your rebuttal below):
Uh, that's nice. I study planning in KW area so we visit Toronto frequently for research, and for examples of what not to do.

>>>>>>>>> (same)
In the long term, PATH will merely get crowded, and all of us here have already established that it's too late to put anything above ground, so Toronto's street capacity is the same as another city's where their retail is on street level.

>>>>>>>>> (same)
There's no difference in the concept, except with +15 you have natural light. Both are essentially giant malls, only that Toronto's is very extensive and has become a viable way to get around, whereas the +15's in other cities aren't.

>>>>>>>>> (same)
Not a good thing.

>>>>>>>>> (same)
Not if there's nothing to do outside.

>>>>>>>>> (same)
Not necessarily. A busy street with slow moving traffic and crowds of people milling about is more vibrant than one with wide avenues but no venues, where you see cars whizzing by or the fleeting shadows of people disappearing from one building to the next. More than once I've caused collisions and human pile ups in the PATH just by slowing down. High-speed pedestrians should adopt a 2-second reaction time just like on freeways... no tailgating plz. In fact there should be a fast lane and a HOV lane for families and strollers.

>>>>>>>>> (same)
Now that's a bigger waste of valuable land.
>>>>>>>>> (same)
What cities should do is overbuild their underground parking such that the upper levels can be converted to underground retail in the future when the density calls for it, so that the only digging needed will be under the streets for connections in between. Or build the first few floors of offices with future retail in mind.

Very good arguments. You're 100% correct on all of those points. KW? Are you at Laurier or Waterloo studying urban planning? A good friend of mine is doing the same, but at the University of Toronto. It's validation to hear that people in this field recognize what is quite apparent to me. Stand your ground.

No matter how much people disagree with these arguments, they are correct. I'm a little surprised that so few people see it. They look at a stunning and grand looking CBD and conclude that something else couldn't possibly be superior design.

I care more about functionality and physical appearance than just the latter alone. The CBD looks fantastic, but it lacks a key characteristic of a well designed urban plan. Btw, I added the emoticon with the guy scratching his head. Hope you didn't mind.

I don't think its a case of copying Wall st. as Taller said, but the fact that there is no retail is inherent in the type of business that is located at King and Bay. I've been there, and I have also recently visited Wall st. AND the City(and Canary Wharf), as well as the CBD in Madrid, all in the last 3 months, some as recently as two weeks ago.

It's just a characteristic of the type of neighbourhood that is created, there is nothing wrong about this.

Jane Jacobs touches on this, about why Wall st. is dead. Put it this way, the only way a service business makes money in a powerful CBD is serving a few people before work, the lunch crush, and a few more after work ends. Any time in between that there is nobody there.

I disagree with you Isaidso in that there is also a design flaw and its too late to change. You can't j you can move people around, the more efficient a person and company can be.

So to get back to why the CBD is dead, and why not much retail can be supported. I touched on it earlier. The residential values become too great to support, so the business that benefit being closer to the mix move downtown to the CBD. So for started we have no people in the CBD for efficieny reasons. Now i'm not saying that nobody can live there, but it would only be the wealthy because they would be the only ones who could afford to live there.

The problem with this is that to have any successful business operate after 5-6 in the CBD, you need a lot of people, more than the residential population can afford to handle. Plus, by taking away from the land that could be devoted to office towers, you are actually making things worse. So you would need tens of thousands of wealthy people to migrate downtown to make this happen, and it won't. That is the reason why this isn't bad planning, its planning that just isn't viable.

Second, why can't the business people during the day support many retailers at grade? One is because of the way the business are run, and most operate at the same time.

At grade retail would only get bussines, a little before work starts, the lunch crush and a little after work. Other than that, rarely anybody goes in. That is why if you go to PATH around 6 you will see shops closing up. For any other business, this would be suicide, but for PATH it actually is a wise business move. This is the same for a business that would operate on the street in the CBD. The reason it works better for PATH comes down to efficiency also. No streets to cross, better climate. The fact that people that come in on the GO train or subway at Union and don't have to travel outside during a cold February is actually a huge selling point, no matter how much you want to disagree. The PATH stores, because they take up little space for the most part, don't spend as much on rent as one on the street would because people just pop in and pop out. They are tailored to the consumer, which are the workers in the office towers.

I hope that helps everybody understand a bit better the planning and economics of why the CBD has no above ground retail and why the PATH is so successful.

Wall Street, while having some different architecture, is very similar to the Bay/King area. Flooded with office workers during the day, and deserted at night and weekends. This is pretty much true of any powerful CBD that I have visited.. once the office workers go, that's it till tomorrow. And Wall St is way too valuable land for street level retail. In fact, finding a pharmacy or a convenience store in many parts of Manhattan is a trial.

Yeah, I freaked out once when I was in New York, walking from South Street Seaport to Wall Street, then realizing I was the only one walking on the street. The area was so deserted I just kinda panicked and got a bit paranoide. (Well, my brother kept telling me I might get shot if I go to NYC. lol That was in the 90's though) But even now, the Wall Street area of NYC is very quiet. It's amazing how in NYC, you'll be on one street and it's full of life and then a few streets over, it's completely empty.

As for more levels below an office tower, I don't see how that would be better than a seamless one level shopping plaza beneath the street level.

I think we're talking about the same thing. I was saying that an underground mall can consist of former P1/P2 levels of many buildings, connected together via connections under the streets.

Anyway I still don't understand the argument that land's too valuable to put retail in the CBD... all there is now are huge empty plazas within superblocks and as Urban2.0 said, utilities. Keep in mind that most of the office towers were designed at a time when density was a product of efficiency rather than land value, as land was far less expensive, hence the generous (and insensitive) use of space at ground level. Surely places like Robson and Bloor are making better use of their land due to much higher rents.

I don't buy the argument that retail can't survive at street level in the CBD. Walk along Bay street and there are lots of restaurants and places that do a good business. I think there are lots of places where retail could be built at ground level and I'd like to see more of it done. With more residential built downtown, you have more people walking around or even through the CBD and that provides more opportunities for retail. Bay Street always has a lot of people walking around and even the smaller streets are never deserted. Even when I walk through at night, I always see people walking around.

I don't think its a case of copying Wall st. as Taller said, but the fact that there is no retail is inherent in the type of business that is located at King and Bay. I've been there, and I have also recently visited Wall st. AND the City(and Canary Wharf), as well as the CBD in Madrid, all in the last 3 months, some as recently as two weeks ago.

It's just a characteristic of the type of neighbourhood that is created, there is nothing wrong about this.


Just because it is a characteristic of Madrid, New York, and Toronto doesn't make it optimal design. Nothing wrong with how it is now? That depends on what your definition of wrong is. These areas function and look great, in that sense there is nothing wrong with them, but that's not the point. The point is it could have been smarter design.

We're not arguing that Wall Street has been copied. It doesn't matter whether this grew organically or not either. It's just not the ideal urban plan.

So to get back to why the CBD is dead, and why not much retail can be supported. I touched on it earlier. The residential values become too great to support, so the business that benefit being closer to the mix move downtown to the CBD. So for started we have no people in the CBD for efficieny reasons. Now i'm not saying that nobody can live there, but it would only be the wealthy because they would be the only ones who could afford to live there.

We're not seeking stores to satisfy residential demand, just to satisfy the demand that exists today. Why is it all crammed under ground? It should have been both above and below.


Jane Jacobs touches on this, about why Wall st. is dead. Put it this way, the only way a service business makes money in a powerful CBD is serving a few people before work, the lunch crush, and a few more after work ends. Any time in between that there is nobody there.

I disagree with you Isaidso in that there is also a design flaw and its too late to change. You can't j you can move people around, the more efficient a person and company can be.

I agree with Jane Jacobs, but I'm not sure what her argument has to do with this. Having stores that open from 8 am till 5 pm is what we are arguing for. Is this a problem that they close? All stores close. Having stores in PATH AND at street level is going to impede the efficiency of businesses? I don't see how you can argue that. Having pubs, restaurants, and gift shops on the street, as exists in London's 'City', surely doesn't seem to get in the way of those people performing their jobs.

Second, why can't the business people during the day support many retailers at grade? One is because of the way the business are run, and most operate at the same time.

The problem with this is that to have any successful business operate after 5-6 in the CBD, you need a lot of people, more than the residential population can afford to handle. Plus, by taking away from the land that could be devoted to office towers, you are actually making things worse. So you would need tens of thousands of wealthy people to migrate downtown to make this happen, and it won't. That is the reason why this isn't bad planning, its planning that just isn't viable.


No, it's a waste of valuable land the way it is now. Retail wouldn't reduce the amount of office space available. Do you have any idea how much space those towers waste at ground level? Courtyards, expansive lobbies. Besides, that is what 60 floors instead of 40 floors accomplishes. It's the present design that has wasted valuable land. A high street isn't going to reduce office space one iota.

You're arguing that the space downtown is too expensive for retail. PATH is retail. If anything, it's exactly because space is expensive that you don't waste it with expansive courtyards filled with nothing. You design it so that this space is used for both public space AND the retail that is obviously in huge demand. Stores exist in the CBD because of the huge demand. They are just in the wrong place.

It should have been designed so that retail existed below AND above to give people choice, to maintain the vibrancy of the street, to make better use of valuable surface land, and to give office workers a superior work environment. I'm sorry, but if I'm an office worker, I'd much prefer sitting in an outdoor care, and strolling along a busy strip of high street in June, than stuffed into a cave.

At grade retail would only get bussines, a little before work starts, the lunch crush and a little after work. Other than that, rarely anybody goes in. That is why if you go to PATH around 6 you will see shops closing up. For any other business, this would be suicide, but for PATH it actually is a wise business move. This is the same for a business that would operate on the street in the CBD. The reason it works better for PATH comes down to efficiency also. No streets to cross, better climate. The fact that people that come in on the GO train or subway at Union and don't have to travel outside during a cold February is actually a huge selling point, no matter how much you want to disagree. The PATH stores, because they take up little space for the most part, don't spend as much on rent as one on the street would because people just pop in and pop out. They are tailored to the consumer, which are the workers in the office towers.


At grade would get the same business that PATH gets. Some before work, some at lunch break, and some right after work. Why is this a problem? It's ok for PATH to get business only at these hours, but not if retail is exposed to the sun?

I hope that helps everybody understand a bit better the planning and economics of why the CBD has no above ground retail and why the PATH is so successful.

PATH is successful because it's the only option, not because office workers don't want above ground retail. It's like saying that there is little pedestrian activity in Mississauga and that is why the highway system is so successful. That is faulty logic. One has led to the other not because the other isn't needed. I hope you don't mind my criticisms. I welcome your arguments, I just think they are flawed. You haven't fleshed them out thoroughly.

By the way, it's inaccurate to say that no retail exists at grade in the CBD. What about Cafe Supreme, Penelope, and Ki restaurant? They are perfect examples of what the CBD should look like. It should be an apron of retail like that with a few areas designated for courtyard, water features, art, etc. They are living examples of how viable retail at grade is. I just wish that half the stores in PATH were here instead of below.

With all due respect to the late, great Jane, why must we fret that 100% of areas of the city are not bustling 24 hours a day? What is wrong with the concept that a quarter devoted to office business is simply busy during 9-5? Should we worry that it is not swarming with people at night? Should we worry that the sidewalks of Rosedale are quiet in the evening, and try to get sidewalk traffic into that area? I don't completely understand the compulsion to make all areas of a city identical. I see upper Bay Street as increasingly a residential corridor, and one block over I see Yonge Street as the entertainment/shopping corridor. Both streets do not have to perform the same function. There is little need for many of us to go to King and Bay at night, any more than there would be need for me to cycle up to a Canadian Tire at 3am. If I want street life I go to a residential/commercial strip like Church Street/Queen St/College St., etc....

Wer're on the same page here Taller, but I don't think anyone else read my argument fully, except Isaidso, who disagrees with me. I can flesh out my argument later, but i have lunch going, don't want it to burn.

With all due respect to the late, great Jane, why must we fret that 100% of areas of the city are not bustling 24 hours a day?

Cuz it's currently closer to 0.1%. Outside a few key intersections and strips, the rest of the city is dead, let alone anywhere outside of old toronto/bayview village. The point of the whole discussion is that without PATH it would have been better. Don't need to defend everything ya know.

No, it's a waste of valuable land the way it is now. Retail wouldn't reduce the amount of office space available. Do you have any idea how much space those towers waste at ground level?

I put these two quotes next to each other, and no one else saw the irony:

Wall St is way too valuable land for street level retail.

The ground level of any office tower is full of a lot of building services - and not much space for a few shops.

Cuz it's currently closer to 0.1%. Outside a few key intersections and strips, the rest of the city is dead, let alone anywhere outside of old toronto/bayview village. The point of the whole discussion is that without PATH it would have been better. Don't need to defend everything ya know.



I put these two quotes next to each other, and no one else saw the irony:

Actually Dleung, where is PATH is located is probably the busiest section of the city, so your argument is flawed.

For isaidso, I think you missed my whole point entirely.

My point being that the ideal urban plan, or the one you deem most ideal, will not work in this situation.

Obviously, with the amount of workers there, don't you think that the stores would want to be on the street if the demand is there? Except there isn't. PATH is where the demand is.

My whole argument was based on the fact that the only way stores could stay open is if there is residential, and there cannot be. You keep saying that there is demand for street retail when there is obviously not. If PATH is such a failure, why is it so successful? BECAUSE IT IS THE IDEAL PLAN.

Just because you want to walk on the street doesn't mean everyone else does.

Also, think about this for a second. PATH didn't start as this huge thing, it started relatively small. Once people realized the success of it, they added on. Now, if you're a company and you had to put a store somewhere but you could only choose one loaction, where would you put it? Exactly! the place where it would make the most money, where the demand is. If there was street level demand, it could have placed it there. You on the other hand are saying they are in the wrong place, according to who? Only you of course. However, can 1200 places really be that wrong isaidso? I didn't think so.

Your view is skewed, you think what you should have, everyone should have.

Maybe people don't want a choice, maybe this is THE BEST CHOICE.

I'm sorry, but if I'm an office worker, I'd much prefer sitting in an outdoor care, and strolling along a busy strip of high street in June, than stuffed into a cave.

Yes, you maybe sorry, but you are not everyone. I don't understand, why are you getting so mad at such a successful venture. We're always complaining about uniqueness, we finally have something, and you are tearing it apart?

This cafe you speak of, how would it remain viable from October to May, just wondering? Even in times of operation, how would it remain viable, the 1-2 hours it does business a day? That's the whole point, nobody strolls and sits in the CBD, its rush, rush, rush. That's why the PATH is so great, its caterted to people who are in a rush. People don't want to sit and have a coffee after work, they want to get home. You keep saying why don't we give them the option, and I can say, because the option is not wanted, that is why it is not there.

I also think you didn't read my argument about other CBD's and why they are also dead. It's not because they are doing something wrong, its because its just a characteristic about doing business.

Now i'm not saying that there should be no street level business, that would just be silly. But to have this street level activity you speak of in the area you speak of is just not going to happen. It's not peoples jobs in these high stress areas, to stroll, its to get shit done and on time. I think you are missing the point that this area is the exception, not the rule. Now any other area can have a variety of businesses that cater to the population around, however, this is not one of them. This is different.

Obviously, with the amount of workers there, don't you think that the stores would want to be on the street if the demand is there? Except there isn't.

Of course there is demand, just that there's nowhere to put that retail now that the area is built out. Isaidso and I both said that it's too late to do anything about it now... we're just saying that if it never happened, Toronto would have taken a different course and for the better.

If PATH is such a failure, why is it so successful? BECAUSE IT IS THE IDEAL PLAN.

It's successful because it's the only option in the CBD, since above ground is all used up for lobbies and plazas. It proves that even rush rush business people need retail... yes they are human too.

Also, think about this for a second. PATH didn't start as this huge thing, it started relatively small. Once people realized the success of it, they added on.
That's how suburbia, mcD's and Walmart started.

Edit: Check this out http://projects.flowingdata.com/walmart/

Regarding ground floors and services -

You have to remember how much money the landlord is making in the space above the ground floor.

They're going to sacrafice a mall like environment as to provide freeflow of people to the office tower. Why would they make retail more important than the 50 floors above.

Also remember restrictions placed by the fire dept. and others as to allow for easy access / escape from the building.

But it's the rent from above that dictates the ground floor layout

Those are tiny issues that could be easily mitigated. TD centre really doesn't need a plaza twice the size of the towers' combined footprint. I'm slightly disturbed that some people are saying "yeah of course the CBD is cold and unfriendly and shuts down after 6, that's the way it is elsewhere and always will/should be". It doesn't have to be like that.

Btw, everyone else, this isn't a criticism of just Toronto, these problems are even worse in other North American cities where there's no street retail and no PATH. It's great that the people here are at least educated enough to discuss it as an issue, whatever their opinions are.

Those are tiny issues that could be easily mitigated. TD centre really doesn't need a plaza twice the size of the towers' combined footprint. I'm slightly disturbed that some people are saying "yeah of course the CBD is cold and unfriendly and shuts down after 6, that's the way it is elsewhere and always will/should be". It doesn't have to be like that.

Btw, everyone else, this isn't a criticism of just Toronto, these problems are even worse in other North American cities where there's no street retail and no PATH. It's great that the people here are at least educated enough to discuss it as an issue, whatever their opinions are.

That is why you guys are missing my whole point entirely, it does have to be like that, and I already explained why so i'm not going through it again, read my last couple posts again, you might get the picture.

Cuz it's currently closer to 0.1%. Outside a few key intersections and strips, the rest of the city is dead, let alone anywhere outside of old toronto/bayview village. The point of the whole discussion is that without PATH it would have been better. Don't need to defend everything ya know.



:


"The point of the whole discussion is that without PATH it would have been better. Don't need to defend everything ya know."

No, that is not the whole point of the discussion, that is simply one side of the discussion. You are a 19 year old suburbanite from Vancouver, with little first hand knowledge of Toronto (but apparently oodles of "opinions"). Do you really think I need your permission to have opinions about the city I have lived in for the past 25 years? :lol:

Sorry, bad wording on my part. The point of the discussion is whether or not PATH is a good thing for Toronto, as opposed to whether Toronto is good enough."

Anyway, glad to see you've edited out the not-so-friendly part of your post.

Pffft.. you think that was "not so friendly"? You don't know me any better than you know Toronto if you think that was me being unfriendly. No.... me being unfriendly is quite different than that! Keep telling me what I can or cannot say and you might encounter some of the real stuff! :)

Pffft.. you think that was "not so friendly"? You don't know me any better than you know Toronto if you think that was me being unfriendly. No.... me being unfriendly is quite different than that! Keep telling me what I can or cannot say and you might encounter some of the real stuff! :)

You are a 19 year old suburbanite from Vancouver, with little first hand knowledge of Toronto (but apparently oodles of "opinions"). Do you really think I need your permission to have opinions about the city I have lived in for the past 25 years? :lol:

Now I'm dying to see the real stuff, lol. Anyway, my comment was valid. You are a self-professed "cheerleader central", which is great, but not so productive when manifest in uh personal attacks.

Now I'm dying to see the real stuff, lol. Anyway, my comment was valid. You are a self-professed "cheerleader central", which is great, but not so productive when manifest in uh personal attacks.

No personal attack, dleung... but next time you get the urge to tell me what I can or can't say, please carefully read what I have written, first. (By the way, you didn't even properly quote what I said in the Toronto Pet Peeves thread! ;) ). My point is that in a city.. ANY CITY there are areas of office commerce, areas of residential, and areas of retail. Sometimes, when it makes sense, they overlap. Sometimes, in the case of major office tower CBD's, they don't, and in those office areas things get quiet at night. PM me if you still have any questions about this, so that we can stop clogging up the L Tower thread.

With all due respect to the late, great Jane, why must we fret that 100% of areas of the city are not bustling 24 hours a day? What is wrong with the concept that a quarter devoted to office business is simply busy during 9-5? Should we worry that it is not swarming with people at night? Should we worry that the sidewalks of Rosedale are quiet in the evening, and try to get sidewalk traffic into that area? I don't completely understand the compulsion to make all areas of a city identical. I see upper Bay Street as increasingly a residential corridor, and one block over I see Yonge Street as the entertainment/shopping corridor. Both streets do not have to perform the same function. There is little need for many of us to go to King and Bay at night, any more than there would be need for me to cycle up to a Canadian Tire at 3am. If I want street life I go to a residential/commercial strip like Church Street/Queen St/College St., etc....

Indeed! Unless street-level buildings are vacant and boarded up, why worry about 24/7 activity in areas that are otherwise successful? King/Bay does not need to be some after-hours gathering spot; there is no lack of these in Toronto.

PATH cannot be easily judged using conventional notions of "ideal" city planning, as it is rather unique, and needs to be looked at in its unique context.

It is an interesting, rather serendipitous feature that for whatever reason, has come to exist, and is a huge asset to those who work/stay there, and the landlords/hotels that own the properties.

It contains far more retail/service space than could ever be accommodated at street level, and it serves a very specialized/localized demographic, which is effectively good mixed-use planning in that respect. If it were not for PATH, the streets would be overwhelmed with people during the morning/eve rush hours....MINT has an astounding density of workers in a very small area.

It provides people with the willingness to use it, where if they were forced to go out and look for whatever on the street, they wouldn't even bother most of the time. It is in effect, a very cleverly camouflaged suburban mall killer, in the fact that it allows the large amounts of commuters to shop before, during and after work, that they would generally do when they get home. This provides jobs and helps keep the downtown economy healthy.

The area in question is a rather small area...well within the Queen/Yonge/Front/ University perimeter. As someone mentioned, every square inch of the city does not have to conform to a Jane Jacobs model. I like the fact that we have a "financial district", and I like that we use it to showcase some powerful economic and architectural heavy hitters...every city needs to show a little muscle, even if it is not "practical" or ideal city planning....it still adds to the city with its small, but powerful message.

And yes, the TD Centre does need to have its plaza...not only is it part of the design, but I like having the space to stand back and appreciate some of those great towers of commerce (and it acts as a nice little park-like space to enjoy an outdoor lunch).

Toronto has plenty of smart, TOD, mixed-use, brown-field, sustainable development...all great stuff. But where would we be without our MINT?

PATH does not detract in any way...it only adds.



KGB

I actually buy the argument about flexing some economic muscle; of course that makes it less a planning issue than it is an aesthetic one... still reasonable since the vitality of cities also depend on invoking a range of experiences. I do appreciate the look of windswept skyscraper canyons, though personally I wouldn't want to walk through it in winter, lol.

I actually buy the argument about flexing some economic muscle; of course that makes it less a planning issue than it is an aesthetic one

Or more accurately...a psychological one. "Bay Street" as an entity, carries plenty of weight outside of its environs.




KGB

True, it is not particularly inviting in the winter, nor, I suppose, is the intent to be so.
I would feel sad if the great modern banking halls were built today instead of 40 years ago... they would be chock-a-block with no sweeping plazas. It is a very pleasant place to while away a few hours lying on the grass and staring up at the towers. But even in winter there is a sort of peace and calm amidst the hustle and bustle of the city.

http://i82.photobucket.com/albums/j251/dawnd_01/Autumn%202007/winter%202007/Summer%202008/New%20Summer%202008/april0206downtownshotKingStviii.jpg

But it is really something you have to experience in person.. it is not something you can Google, or do a flow chart showing the cost analyis. Personally, I really don't want retail clogging it up any more than I crave University Avenue to be artificially converted to an outdoor shopping plaza.

^^ To each his own.


I put these two quotes next to each other, and no one else saw the irony:

It was not lost on me at all. I left this thread alone for 2 days, and holy crap.

With all due respect to the late, great Jane, why must we fret that 100% of areas of the city are not bustling 24 hours a day? What is wrong with the concept that a quarter devoted to office business is simply busy during 9-5? Should we worry that it is not swarming with people at night?

What is wrong with it? It's boring! Do I worry about it? No. I simply advocate for designs that increase a city's interest level, and criticize one's that take away from it. I take into account that a city needs quiet spaces too, and I certainly don't want every stitch of Toronto bustling 24 hours a day. This is one that should have been though.

Toronto is hardly in danger of turning into this intensely bustling place with no escape that you describe. Probably only 5% of the total land area of Toronto is bustling in that fashion. The rest is nowhere near it, and never will be. I don't see how arguing for a small patch of the downtown to be a lively place can be extrapolated into saying that someone wants the city bustling 24 hours a day in 100% of the areas. If the entire CBD became a bustling 24 hour area, the other 95% of the city that isn't bustling will still remain so.

If we were reaching 30% of the land area, then it might be time to put on the brakes, but we're nowhere close to being Tokyo. Perhaps, it is that I come from London, and you from Winnipeg? We have differing ideas of what comfortable density levels are.

If the CBD had been designed differently, we could have had towers that look almost the same, large grand courtyards that look almost the same, but simply more density along the perimeter. Have a closer look the next time you are down there. It isn't a one or the other proposition. We could have easily had both. Also look at Cafe Supreme and Ki, then try to visualize 4 or 5 of those on every block. It would have been dynamite.


For isaidso, I think you missed my whole point entirely.

My point being that the ideal urban plan, or the one you deem most ideal, will not work in this situation.

Obviously, with the amount of workers there, don't you think that the stores would want to be on the street if the demand is there? Except there isn't. PATH is where the demand is.

My whole argument was based on the fact that the only way stores could stay open is if there is residential, and there cannot be. You keep saying that there is demand for street retail when there is obviously not. If PATH is such a failure, why is it so successful? BECAUSE IT IS THE IDEAL PLAN.


No, I think you explained your case very well. I understand it, but simply disagree with your rationale. It's also become clear that you're under the impression that I am suggesting that there is additional retail demand at street level. I am not. I am simply saying that the location of all the stores is not smart design. It should be half underground, and half above ground. The way they built the CBD will mean that there will never be this option.

I don't think the stores have any interest in re-locating to the street, but not because people have no interest in shopping at street level. Those same office workers who buy ties in their store in January would be buying the tie at a store on street level in June. Why do they have to go underground in June? The answer is because the design of the CBD has dictated so. That is a design flaw.

It all boils down to why 99.8% of the retail was squeezed below grade. I'm not arguing that more retail demand exists than there is today, but simply it shouldn't have all been put where it was. We still could have had the same towers, the same courtyards, etc. but with density along the perimeter. The way it has been designed is a massive waste of valuable space and turned the entire CBD community into mall rats, whether they want to be or not.

That is not good design. Whether one likes the appearance of the CBD is neither here, nor there.

As you say, "each to his own"!

In any case, has anyone heard anything new about the L Tower proposal?

The last thing Toronto needs is another ugly skyscraper like the L tower.
yes, it would look much much better to build another box there than to draw an italian map.

You want MORE boxes??
F$%* that!
I love our boxes, but its about time we tried something a little different. This fits the bill. Its not tacky or overly designed and its as good of a spot as any for it.

People who are tired of "more boxes" are in for a treat! We probably won't be seeing a lot of "more" of anything for some time now, other than what is coming down in the pipes. :)

i really liked the L tower it was really nice and unique..kind of looked like a sword..but they change the design of it???that sucks.....

We got to get over our box fetish sooner or later. A box can be nice but how many times can you keep doing the same shit over and over? I wanna see some curves! (lots of them) This city is not the bland, conservative city it once was. It's time our architecture reflected that, which it slowly is.

We got to get over our box fetish sooner or later. A box can be nice but how many times can you keep doing the same shit over and over? I wanna see some curves! (lots of them) This city is not the bland, conservative city it once was. It's time our architecture reflected that, which it slowly is.

I too would like to see more daring architecture here, but the idea that conservative architecture = social conservatism is quite the fallacy.

Some of the world's other most progressive cities - like San Francisco, Amsterdam, and Montreal - are even more conservative in their approach to contemporary architecture. Now on the other hand, look at Dubai (I think you see where I'm going with this).

I too would like to see more daring architecture here, but the idea that conservative architecture = social conservatism is quite the fallacy.

Some of the world's other most progressive cities - like San Francisco, Amsterdam, and Montreal - are even more conservative in their approach to contemporary architecture. Now on the other hand, look at Dubai (I think you see where I'm going with this).

I don't think people are equating conservative architecture with social conservatism.

We also need to get away from the idea that a move away from conservative architecture = Dubai. People are simply wishing for a more cosmopolitan aesthetic. I wouldn't describe San Francisco, Amsterdam, and Montreal as more conservative than Toronto in their approach either. Their approach to design is cosmopolitan. Toronto's is not. Both are urban, however. It's important to recognize the distinction.

The backlash isn't against poor quality or standards, but designs that speak to a tradition rooted design aesthetic which dominates. If Toronto's demographic make up was the same today as it was in 1970, few would complain. Toronto is a very cosmopolitan city today, but the design sensibilities of the industry haven't caught up to that reality yet. People who have a cosmopolitan design sense do not find buildings like Bay Adelaide engaging. They want buildings that do a better job of speaking to them.

I wouldn't describe San Francisco, Amsterdam, and Montreal as more conservative than Toronto in their approach either. Their approach to design is cosmopolitan. Toronto's is not. Both are urban, however. It's important to recognize the distinction.



I'm not entirely convinced I buy the argument that the plethora of exposed concrete architecture built in Post WWII Montreal (either Brutalist, or a derrivitive of that style) can fairly be attributed to "Cosmopolitanism". I can see a counter argument that perhaps it was a case of erecting as many buildings as possible, in as short a time-frame, for the least amount of money, with little effort to blend in, or peacefully coexist with the existing neighbourhood. I fully admit I am not a fan of the style, especially the way it wound up being interpreted as in just about every nook and cranny of the industrialized world. I do appreciate the fact you have been able to make me see that there are those who enjoy it - that came as rather a surprise to me. To my mind it was almost unconscionable what was inflicted upon Montreal for several decades, and in fact has resulted in a visual blight on the city. What makes it even worse was the amount of older architecture that was bulldozed to make room for it. I suppose we could at least agree it is debatable whether what happened in Montreal could be considered "Cosmopolitan", or whether that is simply a way of sugar coating a less desireable explanation.

Some of the world's other most progressive cities - like San Francisco, Amsterdam, and Montreal - are even more conservative in their approach to contemporary architecture. Now on the other hand, look at Dubai (I think you see where I'm going with this).

And there's totally regressive places like China that brought you the giant Razor, the watercube and the Birds Nest.

I suppose we could at least agree it is debatable whether what happened in Montreal could be considered "Cosmopolitan", or whether that is simply a way of sugar coating a less desireable explanation.

TB, you have an amazing way of framing someone else's argument, lol.

No, I would not say it is a case of "framing"... , at all... I would say it is simply pointing out that the subject matter is not necessarily an accepted fact, but rather a theory (and that is a big difference). This particular theory has been put forward in a book Isaidso was describing, but I am just not fully convinced I agree with it (perhaps I have misinterpreted or misunderstood what he was saying completely) . I fully admit I have always felt Montreal was savaged by concrete towers in a way that paid little heed to the beauty of the original city, and to an extent not seen in every city... and it is hard for me to turn around that thinking. Isaidso has at least made me aware that there are people who enjoy the aesthetic, and I appreciate and respect that.
Besides, he is a clever lad, and enjoys a bit of to and fro'! :D

I'm not entirely convinced I buy the argument that the plethora of exposed concrete architecture built in Post WWII Montreal (either Brutalist, or a derrivitive of that style) can fairly be attributed to "Cosmopolitanism". I can see a counter argument that perhaps it was a case of erecting as many buildings as possible, in as short a time-frame, for the least amount of money, with little effort to blend in, or peacefully coexist with the existing neighbourhood. I fully admit I am not a fan of the style, especially the way it wound up being interpreted as in just about every nook and cranny of the industrialized world. I do appreciate the fact you have been able to make me see that there are those who enjoy it - that came as rather a surprise to me. To my mind it was almost unconscionable what was inflicted upon Montreal for several decades, and in fact has resulted in a visual blight on the city. What makes it even worse was the amount of older architecture that was bulldozed to make room for it. I suppose we could at least agree it is debatable whether what happened in Montreal could be considered "Cosmopolitan", or whether that is simply a way of sugar coating a less desireable explanation.

Likewise, it's been an eye opener to read your arguments. My reasoning started from the other end, naturally. I didn't understand your explanation of brutalist architecture being prevalent due to cost, time, and indifference because I love that style. I back tracked from there to realize it stemmed from your aversion to brutalist architecture. Is that a possibility? The rationale being: if one doesn't like something, there must be strong forces at work to cause people to build them any way.

Likewise, if someone didn't recognize that people liked Mies' TD Centre, they might conclude that it was constructed to save money, put something up quickly, but with complete disregard for the other buildings. Like Montreal bulldozing old buildings for brutalist structures, Toronto tore down gorgeous 1920s skyscrapers to build TD Centre. (I love TD Centre, btw.)

I'm not convince that brutalist architecture is anything but a result of appealing to the design culture of the city they are built in.

I don't want to rehash my issues with Toronto's built form since you are aware of them already. What these internal struggles did was make me search, in earnest, for what it was that bothered me. Why does Montreal and London's dominant built form speak to me in a way that Toronto's never has?

It has troubled me for 20 years, but I've only in the last 2 years come to understand what was at its root. It was so difficult for me to put my finger on because the answer wasn't obvious. Neither is this my chosen field of study, so I had to do my own digging till I found the answer. Cosmopolitanism! It was a light bulb moment, and the only thing that makes sense to me.

It may not be a convincing argument for you, but it cleared up so many question marks I've had for so long. It also helped me understand why some people are so critical of Toronto, when they also seem to love it so much. If you read between the lines, it is at the heart of all the nasty things they say about Toronto. They want to like Toronto, but can't get passed the fact that Toronto is coming from a diametrical opposed place to where they are rooted. There are a lot of other things going on than just that, but this is a very big part of where some of the animosity comes from. They just doesn't realize it.

I just want to add that many people take offense to an argument that Toronto's design aesthetic isn't cosmopolitan. The implication is condescending. It shouldn't be viewed that way. It should simply be taken in the context in which certain cities evolved. Toronto is a city of tradition. This was a monarchist British stalwart. It wasn't historically a place where people came to re-invent themselves. That Toronto may not exist anymore, but that traditionalist design aesthetic does.

Toronto is arguably the most cosmopolitan city on earth, but the built form doesn't reflect that because the transformation literally happened in 3 decades. The criticisms of Toronto's built form by newcomers is a product of this. These are growing pains that Toronto is experiencing. The city is trying to catch up to the demographic shift. Most of the time, Toronto adapts well, other times, Toronto seems to get pulled kicking and screaming.

"Why does Montreal and London's dominant built form speak to me in a way that Toronto's never has?"

How we perceive cities, and why we perceive them in that manner is, I believe, the product of many influences.. also we sometimes are influenced by social factors surrounding us at the time. From the first time I visited Montreal I viewed the vast quantities of exposed concrete architecture to be a travesty, and a general assault on the more genteel architecture of times past. I suppose I have always felt this sadness so intuitively and so strongly that I naturally assumed a good many people would see it the same way. I am sincere when I say you revealed to me the flip side of the coin by showing me that people might see the post WWII architecture of Montreal and not feel the same sad emotions I always have. I would love to see a theoretical Montreal that had resisted the global trend to brutalism, and gone for a more sensitive interpretation of contemporary building. If Torontonians fret that our city has bulldozed a great deal of historical architecture, they would be mortified to learn just how much of historical Montreal bit the dust ages ago.

I refer to it as a cheaper form of building, because quite frankly it was. That was the beautiful spin-off of Brutalism, with its unfinished concrete surfaces showing the pattern of the plywood molds. In my mind Canada embraced exposed concrete construction at least partially because it is the most economical style of building that I am aware of. Canada was not a wealthy country back in the 70's and 80's compared to the USA, and I think in many cases it came as a godsend to be able to erect buildings cheaply and quickly. I am sure the ease, speed and relatively inexpensive method of architecture was welcomed in many cities of the world for much the same reason.
I don't dislike most Brutalism for that fact; I dislike it's coldness, it's bleak brown-grey bunker like forms turning a blind eye to the neighbourhood. International style architecture attempted to bring the outdoors in... Brutalism did its best to keep the outdoors right where it was, and keep the windows small so we don't actually have to see so much of it.

I wouldn't describe San Francisco, Amsterdam, and Montreal as more conservative than Toronto in their approach either. Their approach to design is cosmopolitan. Toronto's is not.

People who have a cosmopolitan design sense do not find buildings like Bay Adelaide engaging.


I don't keep up with the current developments in these cities to the extent that I do Toronto, but quite frankly, I've seen next to no "daring" architecture from these places as of late, and nothing really that different from the more predictable stuff going up here.

Though I also find this idea of a "cosmopolitan approach" to architecture quite silly. Its not a design related concept, and I fail to see how one architectural style can more closely fit the idea of cosmopolitanism than another.

To my thought, the term "cosmopolitanism" refers to a city being open to outside influences from around the world; the exact opposite of isolationism, or provincialism. Quite frankly the vast majority of all of the buildings in our Canadian cities (apart from log cabins) fit the bill of being outside influences, as they are mostly all styles formulated in foreign countries, not Canada. But to me, when a city closes itself off to outside architects and pounds out reams of one style of building, it defeats the concept of "Cosmopolitanism".
That is perhaps why I am such a big fan of bringing in fresh international blood to small architectural pools that have, after long periods, become quite happy doing the same stale thing over and over. That is also, I suppose, why I find the term "starchitecture" to be rather slyly condescending... it has a disapproving ring to it that implies outside ideas have only been called in to impress people.

It would be stupid to ignore the vast pool of talent beyond our borders, especially considering how many cities in Europe and Asia have done such a better job at urban planning than we have.

That said, while fresh perspectives are desperately needed in our cities, the term "stararchitect" is sort of a warning against the fast food chain style architecture that is prevalent when you employ those kinds of firms. There's nothing fresh about the crumpled aluminum foil shapes that Frank Gehry rubber-stamps all over the world without consideration to topography or climate. Some starchitects are bored stiff and want to get out of the habit, but it's the clients that hired them who liked what they saw in Bilbao, and expect more of the exact same goodies.

Taller:

It is true that Toronto has been heavily influenced by the outside world, but lets delve a little deeper. It's more accurate to say that Toronto was been heavily influenced by the British Isles, Scotland, to be specific. Not only was Toronto a very British city until very recently, but so was its ruling class.

In Britain, London became very cosmopolitan because of the British Empire and London's place in the world. By extension, London influenced the rest of Britain. In Toronto, a heavily Victorian way of thinking continued from the turn of the century and up until the early 1970s. The dominant ruling group, those of British stock, looked to Britain for inspiration. Toronto became more British than Britain in many ways. It's a common phenomenon of immigrants. They attach themselves very strongly to ideas about the motherland. Look at Roncesvalles! It's more Polish than most parts of Poland.

In 1970 onwards, the flood of immigrants from non-traditional sources begun. It was only then, that Toronto begun to rapidly transform itself into the city we see today.

So it's true that Toronto is a cosmopolitan city today, but it's inaccurate to paint this city as having cosmopolitan roots. It doesn't. Toronto was a provincial city despite its size. This only changed very, very recently. Do you remember stating in one of your threads that people need a reality check regarding pre-conceived notions they have about other places every decade, or so? Same applies here. Internationally, Toronto has been viewed as a dull provincial boring town, while Montreal was the sexy cosmopolitan city of sin. Why do you think that is?

It's because 20 years ago, it was true.

Taller: it is true that Toronto has been heavily influenced by the outside world, but lets delve a little deeper. It's more accurate to say that Toronto has been heavily influenced by the British Isles, Scotland, to be specific. Not only was Toronto a very British city until very recently, but so was it's ruling class.

In Britain, London became very cosmopolitan because of the British Empire and London's place in the world. By extension, London influenced the rest of Britain. In Toronto, a heavily Victorian way of thinking continued from the turn of the century and up until the early 1970s. It was only then, when Toronto begun to rapidly transform itself into the city we see today.

So it's true, that Toronto is a cosmopolitan city, but it's inaccurate to paint this city as having cosmopolitan roots. It doesn't. It was a provincial city despite its size.


I think you read much more into what I wrote than what I intended. I spoke merely of my interpretation of the term "Cosmopolitan"; I did not mean to comment how I think it applies to any city other than pointing out, a little tongue in cheek, that virutally all buildings in our Canadian cities have been built with imported styles, not home grown. I think I made it confusing there, but I did not intend it as a claim for general cosmopolitism, nor did I intend it as an impression that Toronto is a city of cosmopolitan roots... For the record I think Canadian cities are, to varying degrees, becoming cosmopolitan, but none, in my opinion were historically particularly "cosmopolitan".

The new rendering and model are on display at the L Tower sales centre.

From UT.

I was in the new L-Tower sales office today with a client. Here's a photo snapped with an iPhone. Should have gotten a good south elevation shot of the model, but was in a hurry. The boot portion of the original design is gone. Replaced by amenities area and open space. Walls are put up on the south side of the Sony Centre forming what could look like the lower boot portion of the "L". So one can argue that there is still an "L" shaped building, facing a different way. Doesn't look nearly as good as before though, imo. :(

Lower floors 3-12 of the tower has been redesigned to loft suites. These will have 10' ceilings.

http://i710.photobucket.com/albums/ww102/brise99/L-Tower/NewLTowermodel.jpg

http://i710.photobucket.com/albums/ww102/brise99/L-Tower/L-Towersouthwest.jpg

http://i710.photobucket.com/albums/ww102/brise99/L-Tower/L-Towernorthwest.jpg


RIP

http://www.eikongraphia.com/wordpress/wp-content/Daniel_Libeskind_L-Tower_4_Small.jpg

umm....now that they cut out the bottom part

is it still called the "L" tower? looks kinda like an I.

Well, one can still call it the L Tower, since the bottom portion has just shifted to the south east side. It will look like an L when viewing it from the south.

'L' is for Libeskind, not the shape of the tower. This still looks fabulous and far from the disaster that a few people are labeling it. If I had bought a unit, I'd rightfully be pissed off, but for those with no money invested in this project, it's a superb addition to Toronto. This may not be as tall as some of the other condo towers that are being built, but it's arguably the sexiest.

Besides, 10 years down the road, we may get the foot portion of this boot.

Well thats disappointing. I was hoping Libeskind would at least have done something echoing the original design.

Oh well, at least it'll still look nice on the skyline. :)

L does stand for Libeskind, but I doubt if many will realize that. There are still a great many people who believe "Crystal" should have been an all glass building as opposed to "Crystalline" in shape, regardless as to how inadvisable an all glazed museum would be.
Thus the folly of nicknames.
The model looks quite smart. I hope this latest change frees things up and they can finally proceed.

I hope this latest change frees things up and they can finally proceed.

You echo my sentiments exactly. The long delay makes sense given that part of the development became unfeasible. A great deal of work must have been done over the last few months to rework the design, etc.

This is still a beautiful tower and will instantly become one of Toronto's land mark buildings.

I have to say, it still looks quite good.

'L' is for Libeskind, not the shape of the tower.

wow had no idea. thats actually pretty clever lol

i hope it gets built! although, it looks like the balconys will be covered with glass so id never buy a unit there. construction will certainly make my walk to Rye campus a lot more interesting from the GO Bus terminal (i can take plenty of pics lol). Are the sales going good ?? (dont feel like shifting thru the thread to check for %age sold)

They sold very well. I'd rate the floor plans of units in this condo tower to be the best ones I've seen. If I were in the market, I would have bought here over all the others.

10 floors of 10ft ceilings, should add about another 5m to it... flirting with 700ft now.

I found this posted on urbantoronto January 9th:

there is some new hoarding going up along the front of the Sony Centre, right along Front Street....no idea what it is for.....

Followed by this February 1st:

The hoarding appears to be wrapping around the entire (Sony Centre) site along with large Vanbots Construction signage.

Sumptin' happenin'.

They sold very well. I'd rate the floor plans of units in this condo tower to be the best ones I've seen. If I were in the market, I would have bought here over all the others.


Shit on a stick would sell well too at their price. They were easily $50 to $100 a square foot below the rest of the market.

Smart move on their part if that is what they did. That could have made the difference between the tower going up or not. Hard to resist the allure of jacking up the price of units so high that they go unsold. This project has had some additional concerns because it is attached to an important building, but my god it is taking its time getting anything done.

Seeing the rendering of this tower, without it's boot, brings a tear to my eye. I want the whole boot!:ohno:
There is hording going up along the east side as well as some signs. I hope this indicates construction is starting.

im glad the tower still looks this good, the city's skyline is gonna benefit from this one.

Yes, it will look fabulous; especially from this angle.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3255/3184640247_a73ff0a20c_b.jpg

Smart move on their part if that is what they did. That could have made the difference between the tower going up or not. Hard to resist the allure of jacking up the price of units so high that they go unsold. This project has had some additional concerns because it is attached to an important building, but my god it is taking its time getting anything done.


It's never smart to sell below market value and is a cause for concern. The city pulling out of their half doesn't help matters either. I wouldn't be surprised to see this project re-worked for additional floors even in this down market. IMO, the developer is too heavily invested to cancel or delay indefinitely.

However, the "market value" artificially skyrocketed just before the economic troubles began. We saw this happen at 1 Bloor East when banners where pulled down and new improved prices slapped up because a frenzied market appeared that it would bear them. The "market value" today is probably lower than the "market value" last winter and maybe that is a more realistic level.

However, the "market value" artificially skyrocketed just before the economic troubles began.

And so did construction costs. Deals can be had and re-negotiating a lower price isn't out of the question however, they still tend to be quite a bit higher than the costs a few years ago.

Shit on a stick would sell well too at their price. They were easily $50 to $100 a square foot below the rest of the market.

The bottom floors were sold at $600+/sq ft. I hardly think that's below market value.

Yes, it will look fabulous; especially from this angle.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3255/3184640247_a73ff0a20c_b.jpg

can anyone use paint brush to place into this picture the area that the tower will be located?

It's never smart to sell below market value and is a cause for concern. The city pulling out of their half doesn't help matters either. I wouldn't be surprised to see this project re-worked for additional floors even in this down market. IMO, the developer is too heavily invested to cancel or delay indefinitely.

Additional floors you say? So could that mean an overall height increase, or would it be more realistic to expect present ceiling heights to be reduced to accomodate more floors?

The bottom floors were sold at $600+/sq ft.

Then my colleagues got a sweet ass deal ... perhaps buy five get one free?

Probably all sorts of deals get made at all sorts of times.

How's this?

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/195/3258916026_03b3663a43_o.jpg

ha ha, that made me laugh Pinkie, imagine they got the tower to look that cartoonish in real life.

http://i710.photobucket.com/albums/ww102/brise99/L-Tower/L-Towernorthwest.jpg
http://www.eikongraphia.com/wordpress/wp-content/Daniel_Libeskind_L-Tower_4_Small.jpg
Hmm...
I think the former design 9.5 / 10
and the new design 5 / 10

Daniel Libeskind must be super super sad.
It has lost its theme as a nice L-shaped tower, and now it looks some kind of mass...

It even makes me think that Daniel Libeskind might have intentionally made it look ugly to revenge the developer(or whoever ) that screwed the original great design.

Hmm...
I think the former design 9.5 / 10
and the new design 5 / 10

Daniel Libeskind must be super super said.
It has lost its theme as a nice L-shaped tower, and now it looks some kind of mass...

It even makes me think that Daniel Libeskind might have intentionally made it look ugly to revenge the developer(or whoever ) that screwed the original great design.

Intentionally made it ugly? The tower portion looks exactly the same. Still beautiful.

It looks like it would fall over with the first bit of wind. The podium gave it a bit more substance and stability.

Well... it still kind of looks like an 'L' if you take the concrete podium into consideration....

How's this?

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/195/3258916026_03b3663a43_o.jpg

awsome thnx Pinkie!

^^That so cute. A condo for Pikachu.

http://i40.************/2uiugdi.jpg
http://s.bebo.com/app-image/7924710610/5411656627/PROFILE/i.quizzaz.com/img/q/u/08/03/21/Pikachu.jpg

hehe! :lol:

I don't understand why it was acceptable for them to tear apart a large chunk of The ROM to build the crystal but they weren't allowed to build the base of this tower because it interfered with part of the Sony Centre? The ROM is much older and architecturally more significant than the Sony Centre is. We continue to demolish old buildings in this city, sometimes salvaging a facade. What was wrong with the original proposal? This is such a farce. Why can't they just build this on one of the many vacant lots downtown? It makes you wonder what goes through politicians heads when they shoot something like this down but have no problem letting bland, repetitive City Placesque buildings to sprout like wild flower.

I don't understand why it was acceptable for them to tear apart a large chunk of The ROM to build the crystal but they weren't allowed to build the base of this tower because it interfered with part of the Sony Centre? The ROM is much older and architecturally more significant than the Sony Centre is. We continue to demolish old buildings in this city, sometimes salvaging a facade. What was wrong with the original proposal? This is such a farce. Why can't they just build this on one of the many vacant lots downtown? It makes you wonder what goes through politicians heads when they shoot something like this down but have no problem letting bland, repetitive City Placesque buildings to sprout like wild flower.

Can you explain to us exactly which large chunk of the ROM was torn apart to build the Crystal? Did you know that the Crystal is actually free standing, and not so much as a bolt actually enters the old ROM building?

Can you explain to us exactly which large chunk of the ROM was torn apart to build the Crystal? Did you know that the Crystal is actually free standing, and not so much as a bolt actually enters the old ROM building?

Did they not rip out a wall on the northern side of the building? Either way how is the L Tower any different? The base was to sit on top of the Sony Centre. The crystal similarly blends into The ROM. Somebody give me Libeskind's msn address so I can talk him into appealing the city's decision.

Did they not rip out a wall on the northern side of the building? Either way how is the L Tower any different? The base was to sit on top of the Sony Centre. The crystal similarly blends into The ROM. Somebody give me Libeskind's msn address so I can talk him into appealing the city's decision.

As far as I know the old building was not harmed in any way.
Google him and you will get his website.

As far as I know the old building was not harmed in any way.
Google him and you will get his website.

Someone needs to go down to city hall and appeal this. This had the potential to be the most iconic building in the city. A complimentary Twix goes to the one that sways City Hall's stance.

As far as I know the old building was not harmed in any way.
Google him and you will get his website.

The crystal is still inappropriate. It looks as if it's forcing sexual relations upon the ancient structure. At least The L Tower base was on top of the Sony Centre, rather than giving it doggie style.

The crystal is still inappropriate. It looks as if it's forcing sexual relations upon the ancient structure. At least The L Tower base was on top of the Sony Centre, rather than giving it doggie style.

So the crystal is inappropriate but a giant boot surrounding the base of the Sony center *cough* isn't ... interesting.

So the crystal is inappropriate but a giant boot surrounding the base of the Sony center *cough* isn't ... interesting.

Correct. Not to mention that the crystal is as ugly as a worm's afternoon snack.

I get the impression the base was scrapped because architects and architect enthusiasts in this city have a strange fascination with 60s structures. And they couldn't bare to see anything get too cozy with such a prominent slab.

How about they couldn't come up with the money for the AHA! center ...

It was approved as is with the boot and all ...

Correct. Not to mention that the crystal is as ugly as a worm's afternoon snack.

I get the impression the base was scrapped because architects and architect enthusiasts in this city have a strange fascination with 60s structures. And they couldn't bare to see anything get too cozy with such a prominent slab.

If that's the case I really doubt the boot would have been a big step up for you ... a raccoon's snack maybe but that's it.

How about they couldn't come up with the money for the AHA! center ...

It was approved as is with the boot and all ...

So then why did they scrap the boot after it was approved? Did hippie preservationists cry foul or did John Olerud just mistime his swing?

So then why did they scrap the boot after it was approved? Did hippie preservationists cry foul or did John Olerud just mistime his swing?

The answer for your question is in the very statement you quoted.

Oh wait, you're banned. Never mind.

Not sure if these renderings have been shown yet of the new base. Looks pretty good still.

http://www.spine3d.com/uploads/218/021.jpg

http://www.spine3d.com/uploads/218/031.jpg

its not bad, but its not as good as the original, i wanted to go and slide down the buildings curvature if it would have been built according to the original design.

Doesn't work for me at all. Angular base. Curved tower and top. It's a little schizophrenic now.

I think it works well with the Hummingbird Centre.

Doesn't work for me at all. Angular base. Curved tower and top. It's a little schizophrenic now.

It interacts much better with the theater now, however. And it looks like it'll create a very nice little public space, but nonetheless, still a compromise to the original design.

Ivy covered portion? Or green plaster. Looks like a small ROM infused there.

It looks like it broke out from the ground. It's okay I guess, but the boot was better flowing.

The bottom doesn't work for me at all. The proportions are not right. It's obvious it was just tacked on. The building needs a bigger podium. The only thing I like is the fountain but I'm sure that's just for the rendering and will probably not show up in the real plaza. (Or a cheaper, smaller version)

Doesn't work for me at all. Angular base. Curved tower and top. It's a little schizophrenic now.



It interacts much better with the theater now, however. And it looks like it'll create a very nice little public space, but nonetheless, still a compromise to the original design.

There is truth in both these statement.... the base is far better integrated to the theatre, but the angular base does not jive with the curved tower.

It's a step down from the original. Couldn't they have built it as is, and used the space in the base for something else? It doesn't matter at this point though. The tower remains intact. Let's get this thing built. It's still the same tower. That hasn't been compromised.

Maybe the base will under go a ROM type transformation in 10-15 years and we'll end up with the boot after all.

Get rid of all that clutter, leave the plaza free and clear, and have the tower hit the ground square. A few fountains and some public art and we're done. That makes more sense to me.

I'm still unclear on why the change was made. Anyone know for sure?

Get rid of all that clutter, leave the plaza free and clear, and have the tower hit the ground square. A few fountains and some public art and we're done. That makes more sense to me.

agreed. the design is not cohesive, and those fountains will not leave much public space at all. Would it have really cost that much more to build the boot, or perhaps a glass box enclosing a big public space on that spot?

Toronto's Sony Centre condo tower set for spring
Sony CEO is '100-per-cent sure' that deal is back on track despite delays

JENNIFER LEWINGTON

From Thursday's Globe and Mail

March 19, 2009 at 5:29 AM EDT

CITY HALL BUREAU CHIEF

Construction of a 49-storey condo tower by celebrity architect Daniel Libeskind atop the city's Sony Centre for the Performing Arts is set for this spring, assuming the deal closes as expected by March 31.

Yesterday, spokesmen for the Sony Centre and the private developer expressed optimism that the project, key to a long-imagined renewal of the cultural icon on Front Street, is finally on track after countless delays.

"I am 100-per-cent sure it is coming together," said Sony CEO Dan Brambilla, of the $27.5-million condo project by Ferncastle Front St. Inc., a joint venture of Castlepoint Realty Partnership and Fernbrook Homes. "It's been a long haul."

The delays, for financial and other reasons, forced the city in December to provide a bridge loan of up to $5-million to Sony to get going on $25-million in renovations this year without having to wait for proceeds from the real-estate transaction. In February, council extended the loan repayment deadline to March 31, the closing date for the deal. Even if it fell through, Sony would have to repay the loan to the city.

But yesterday a spokesman for the developer was as upbeat as Mr. Brambilla about signing the deal by the end of the month.

"Everything is proceeding quite well and we are working very, very hard to start construction on May 15," said Alfredo Romano, a principal of Castlepoint.

City officials also expect the parties to meet the March 31 deadline, but one Toronto councillor made clear there is no appetite for more delays. That's because Sony, which shut its doors to productions in July, 2008, assuming the real-estate deal would be signed last fall, is on a tight timeline to wrap up renovations by December and reopen in January, 2010.

"The deal's been all but inked," said Councillor Howard Moscoe (Ward 15, Eglinton-Lawrence), one of three city councillors who sit on the 12-member Sony board. But he warned: "If the signature is not there, there's no deal."

The condo project, first unveiled in 2005, was envisioned as an L-shaped tower with condos perched above a podium that stuck out like the toe of a boot to house a possible arts and heritage centre. But last fall, with no senior government funding for the arts component, the project was slimmed down to a vertical tower of condos on the southwest corner of the Sony Centre.

With a steep slump in the real-estate market and a nasty credit squeeze, rumours have swirled about the fate of several high-profile condo projects.

Mr. Romano declined to give details of financing for his project, but cited several factors that would comfort lenders.

He said 465 of 496 units have been pre-sold - so far only one buyer has backed out - in advance of a 2012 move-in date. As well, the last of key city planning approvals finally came through this month after two years of negotiations.

He conceded the current market is "difficult," adding "I would not want to be launching a project today for sales." But for all the glum news, he said "the fundamentals of Toronto are quite good."

In February, in setting the date to close the deal, council made two changes to facilitate its completion.

One was to satisfy Ferncastle's lenders. Instead of handing over a deed to the developer on completion of the project, the city agreed to transfer it earlier in the process, once lenders advanced $2.5-million for construction.

The other change gave Sony Centre added flexibility to carry out its renovations, even with a future, unexpected delay in building the condo.

Sony will receive $7.5-million from Ferncastle - $5-million on May 15 and $2.5-million later - to cover the cost of moving the heating system and other infrastructure from the west side of the building to the east side, away from the condo development.

Mr. Brambilla said the centre has spent about $2-million of the $5-million loan toward the renovation, with tenders for contracts to be reviewed after this week.


source: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20090319.wsony19/BNStory/National/home

That is wonderful news!! Thanks for posting!

The article calls it a 49 story tower. Is that on top of an 8 story podium?

The developers are coming out of the woodwork now to calm investors, I wish Bazis wold be a bit forthcoming. This is good news, the more construction the better.

Good news. Perhaps I'll make enough money the next 2 years to buy a unit in there.

49 or 57 stories?

if they reclad the sony centre it might blend better with the new tower. I still dont think theres going to be anyroom to sit and lounge at this site.. its too small. plus theres a park 2 mins away.

have the tower hit the ground square.

Could not agree more. Tapering the tower before it hits the ground makes absolutely no sense anymore, without the foot part of the boot.

disagreed.. tapering the building does it give the building Some edge.. anything to make it look less boxy is a good thing.. I liked the old design MUCH better but if I have to have a box at least give it some style or edge.. plus the tappering gives the sidewalk more room to walk on.

if they reclad the sony centre it might blend better with the new tower.


Wow

if they reclad the sony centre it might blend better with the new tower.

Uh....how about....no.



KGB

How about they integrate some of the Sony Center look into the base of the tower?, Bay-Adelaide style. Could work.

But even Bay-Adelaide doesn't work to a certain extant. Leave the Sony centre as it is.

How about they integrate some of the Sony Center look into the base of the tower?, Bay-Adelaide style. Could work.

Here's what works...leave it original. This is one of Toronto's great Dickinson 50's International Style gems. The form and massing of the building is perfect, as are the materials (limestone, granite, bronze).

The best scenario is to not have the tower at all, but restore the entire site to as new. But, since that isn't the case, the best thing is to have the tower compliment the theatre without obscuring any of its scale or massing, or trying to mimic it...or visa versa. The idea is to juxtapose...ala ROM, which is why Libeskind is a good candidate for this kind of thing.

The terraces need to be redone properly...the west side needs to fit in with the east side.



KGB

Good news. Perhaps I'll make enough money the next 2 years to buy a unit in there.

so close to the bus terminal tho?

anyway im glad its back on! this is one project that will definitely be on a postcard lol

so close to the bus terminal tho?

anyway im glad its back on! this is one project that will definitely be on a postcard lol

the L tower is close to Union Station, which is the train terminal. The bus terminal is at Bay and Elizabeth which is a number of blocks north west.

He's thinking of the GO Bus Terminal I imagine.

Yeah, among mang other beautiful views the L Tower will offer a prime vista of GO buses coming and going. :)

the L tower is close to Union Station, which is the train terminal. The bus terminal is at Bay and Elizabeth which is a number of blocks north west.

He's thinking of the GO Bus Terminal I imagine.

yes i meant the GO bus terminal lol i only use that one so i just consider it THE bus terminal lol, but living there could be quite noisy? with the trains and the buses all coming into union.......

The trains move fairly slowly through the area. I'd take living near the GO bus terminal over the main bus terminal anyday. The GO bus terminal is tidy, and only has a few buses idling at a time.

so close to the bus terminal tho?


I consider that a plus rather than a minus. I prefer being central and located in busy areas. Perhaps when I get old, I'll move out to pasture in Rosedale.

:)

There must be some news on this floating around. This thing has been quite for far too long now.

Wow, Oum find that building much very ugly! looks to Oumbakintae like giant KISS boot. :ohno:

Hey, Oum's back, nice. :lol:

LOL! Us like Oum berry berry much!

Very much thank you Monkeyronin and Taller, Better! Oum get busy and also not get to see very impressive tall skyscrapers in person that Oumbakinte grew up with. Many consecutive months in Thunder Bay (but still get very much personal happiness evertime Oum see Sleeping Giant!)

Oum much very happy to see New York Rangers in Toronto last Feb, and always love Union Station view of Royal Bank from hotdog area between TTC and main entrance!!!! Leaf people probably much happy though since my second favorite team won game in shootout. Oum much mad though on way back to friends house in Vaughn. Young Oum never imagine time when mad at Leaf win, but old Oumbakintae love New York Rangers!

Thank you for remembering Oum many skyscraper friends!!!

Forums need more Oum!! =)

I consider that a plus rather than a minus. I prefer being central and located in busy areas. Perhaps when I get old, I'll move out to pasture in Rosedale.

:)

I live right by the bus terminal, it's great. I can roll out of my condo with 5 minutes before my bus leaves, and still get a coffee.

^^ You live in the new condo on Dundas, with the nice Longo's in the base? I love that building, and the location is SUPERB.

Did they changed the design of the tower? Also, is the construction starting soon? I know it's probably wrote somewhere but I'm too lazy to search. And that's off topic but did they also changed the design of the trump tower before?

Go back a few pages, and all will be revealed. The base was changed.

^^ You live in the new condo on Dundas, with the nice Longo's in the base? I love that building, and the location is SUPERB.

Sorry, I meant the GO bus terminal. but you're right, that building is very nice.

UT forumer Brise has posted a letter he received today, invitation for a luncheon to mark the start of construction of the L-Tower....Oct 21....

:cheers:

What time should we show up? (**impatiently bangs knife and fork on table**)

good to hear that this one has a go ahead! I like the design of this one. and a fine location also! :)

UT forumer Brise has posted a letter he received today, invitation for a luncheon to mark the start of construction of the L-Tower....Oct 21....

:cheers:

nothing beats partying on a Wednesday


:banana::banana::banana::lol:

finally, about time this one began...

Finally indeed!

http://i82.photobucket.com/albums/j251/dawnd_01/liebskind_hummingbird_to_.jpg

I 've been looking for the original rendering until I find this one. Libeskind's design is considered ART and L-Tower is a good example of that.

But I WONDER though: this thread was started in 2006/2007 and now at almost the end of 2009 the question remains: Is it really going to be that design or perhaps here and there, some adjustments or changes are done?

I wonder ... anyone, any answer? news?

they removed the bottom part of the 'L', so now it's just an 'I' tower :D

and why is this still called L tower? for libeskind? what ego.

It'll still be an "L", however, it'll be the lowercase "l" version. Too bad.

Sad but it will still be a stunning work of art.

It'll still be an "L", however, it'll be the lowercase "l" version. Too bad.

^every building is an "l".

It is sort of like an exclamation mark now !

^every building is an "l".
Well, not every building actually. Just saying the name is still valid... barely.

It'll still be an "L", however, it'll be the lowercase "l" version. Too bad.

LMAO ... completely did not realize that ... good find ...