Thanks, Henry. In Toronto they just throw 'em up. It does mean that downtown the streetscapes are higgledy-piggledy. If you take streetcar across Toronto and through downtown you'll notice that the streets in the older neighbourhoods (pre-WWII) have a much more consistent look.
An excellent city-scape John...............it all looks a bit random though, as if it was planned by a three-year old..!! I love those faces peeking round the edge of the building about two-thirds of the way down on the right :-)
Thanks, Keith. You and Henry are right on the money. Downtown Toronto is minimally planned. The city is mainly concerned about density. Developers delinerately propose over-ambitious developments, the city demands reductions, the developers reduce, and away we go! The only architecturally homogeneous part of downtown is the Toronto-Dominion Centre, and that was the bank's idea rather than the city's.
Parts of London are like that now, quite apart from the atrocious City of London skyline with its show-off 'iconic' architectural eyesores. Sometimes it works at ground level if developers make the spaces in between attractive and easy to traverse.
I can't speak about London in general, Phil, but certainly I agree wholeheartedly about the City.. I shudder to think what striking new building is next -- the Toilet Brush? the Teasmade? London Wall is now overbuilt to my eyes, too, but I suppose the commercial pressures to increase density were inexorable.
12 comments
Ulrich John said:
John FitzGerald replied to Ulrich John:
William Sutherland said:
Admired in:
www.ipernity.com/group/tolerance
John FitzGerald replied to William Sutherland:
Henry L ( k4eyv ) said:
John FitzGerald replied to Henry L ( k4eyv ):
Sarah P. said:
John FitzGerald replied to Sarah P.:
Keith Burton said:
John FitzGerald replied to Keith Burton:
I'm glad you noticed the faces. I like them, too.
Phil Sutters replied to John FitzGerald:
John FitzGerald replied to Phil Sutters: