City
Do we really need to protect an encumbered view of Queen's Park?
It's one of the most iconic views of Toronto: when you travel north on University Avenue, you have an unencumbered view of Queen's Park. This view of the legislature is shown over and over on news stories about the provincial government, and had been featured on postcards of the city for hundreds of years. But if some Ontario government officials are correct, it could be in danger.
Looking at Queen's Park from anywhere along University Avenue except College Street, you can see the original Four Seasons Hotel tower poking up. Heritage advocates say that these buildings "compromise" the view of the Ontario legislature. But they are even more concerned about a proposal to tear down the 31-storey Four Seasons Hotel. In its place, the developer proposes building a 40-storey building.
Catherine Nasmith, in a Built Heritage News editorial, claims that "this is a matter that concerns everyone in Ontario. In fact, the dignity of our government buildings is a matter of concern to every Canadian." She also argues that the city has a poor record of protecting historic view corridors, and that this is a matter that the provincial government needs to get involved in.
By my estimation, Nasmith is correct: Toronto has not been very good at protecting its view corridors. In the 1970s, the city was a leader in developing view protection. George Baird wrote a comprehensive proposal in 1974 covering all of the city's view corridors. However, these concerns were gradually side-lined so much that by the 2006 Official Plan, they were only guidelines. Except for some particular cases, such as protecting the views of New City Hall, the city is not fighting for this.
A perfect example of a compromised view corridor is University College. If you've walked along King's College Circle lately, you can see that the condo One Bedford is starting to poke up from the side of University College. The city has produced a map that suggests that this view corridor should have been protected. But this issue was not brought up when the condo's proposal was being reviewed at city council.
Some would argue that this is the way it should be. After all, the Four Seasons already pokes up out of Queen's Park. Toronto is a city of contrasts and unexpected views. No one planned the view of the Gooderham Building on Front Street with the TD Canada Trust Tower behind it, but it is now featured on Toronto's postcards. And the rising Shangri-La tower on University will provide a new view terminus for people heading south on the street.
Nevertheless, this is a matter of urgent concern for many people. The Speaker of the Ontario Legislature Steve Peters is involved, as is the MPP for the area, Glen Murray. A revised proposal for the tower has been taken to the Onatrio Municpal Board (OMB) where hearings began on March 22nd. But even if the OMB approves the tower, the province potentially has the power to override the OMB's decision.
Whatever the outcome, this discussion is an occasion to reconsider our city's lack of focus on view corridors. Should we be working harder to preserve them, as they do in Vancouver? Or is everything fine as it is?


Discussion
17 Comments
Sort By Oldest First / Newest First
Subscribe
Look at Queen's Park today contrasted with the old postcard at the start of this post. You actually can't get a view of the building without power lines, utility poles, cars, roads, etc. in the way. Especally not as a pedestrian, until you get to the north side of college street.
the four seasons building doesn't prevent us from seeing Queen Park, and nobody will mistake it for some weird addition to the building.
Maybe this four seasons building will encourage people to actually get closer to Queen's Park. you won't see it if you're actually standing on the lawn.
Take a poll. I guarantee you the answer "I don't give a s. h*t" will get 80-90%.
There are so many other huger (real) issues in this city to devote energy to.
I don't think it's realistic to preserve that view, it would limit the construction of any tall building for some distance north of the legislature, all in the name of giving it a clean profile. I don't think that's practical.
The aesthetic consequences aren't even that serious. Look at Old City Hall, sometimes the contrast makes an old building looks even more remarkable.
I don't think it's realistic to preserve that view, it would limit the construction of any tall building for some distance north of the legislature, all in the name of giving it a clean profile. I don't think that's practical.
The aesthetic consequences aren't even that serious. Look at Old City Hall, sometimes the contrast makes it looks even more remarkable.
But if some stuff is poking up behind it? Who cares? I certainly don't.
I'd like to see more energy devoted to ensuring architectural excellence in new construction.
======================
Actually, neutrality or abstention shouldn't necessarily be construed as a direction-definng "I don't give a s. h*t". Indeed, if we were to go according to "I don't give a s. h*t", we might as well have no planning, zoning, heritage laws at all...
Or make it a condo.
The Vancouver viewpoints, btw, are about the mountains. THAT makes sense. If there were some mountains behind Queen's Park, I would argue not to obstruct the view.