City
Say goodbye to the Royal York's spot on the Toronto skyline
Prior to the rise of the CN Tower and the TD Centre before it, the Royal York Hotel (completed 1929) was the most prominent building on Toronto's skyline. In fact, up until rather recently, it was still a key figure despite years of development around it. No more. With condos and business towers popping up at what seems to be breakneck speed, the Royal York has finally been almost completely obstructed by other buildings.
Perhaps this is not an occasion for mourning -- cities do, after all, have to grow and the area in question was ripe for development -- but I can't help but feel a tad disappointed that a series of glass buildings -- as nice and as environmentally friendly as they are -- has enveloped this landmark on the skyline.
Truth be told, condo development along the waterfront (i.e. Queens Quay) had already got this process started long ago. But, depending on one's angle, the Royal York could still easily be picked out from the line up of surrounding buildings up until recently.
This was particularly the case from a position of height, which the above photograph (shot in March 2007)) demonstrates. Taken from a public parking garage on Queen's Quay -- a favourite location to shoot for Toronto photographers -- both the hotel and Union Station remain highly visible amongst the mix of structures.
By May of 2009 (above), construction on the Telus Tower and Maple Leaf Square is well underway, though the view of the Royal York is yet to be encumbered. Fast forward to yesterday afternoon, and this is what this portion of the skyline looks like (below).
The angles aren't identical, but they're pretty close. It's quite the transformation, yet doesn't the city now look rather anonymous? And, from this angle at least, it's not just the Royal York that's blocked off. A number of the iconographic office towers of the financial district -- including First Canadian Place and Scotia Plaza -- are more or less struck from one's sight line.
Is change like this bad? Should we preserve such abstract things as views (it's not as if the building has been demolished)? Not necessarily. But just as change may not be bad, it's not necessarily good either. It'd be easy to say that "it just is" -- i.e. neither good nor bad -- but the reality is that our emotional connection with the city of the past often underwrites a nostalgic response to its transformation. So, with that in mind, I'll mourn this loss for a little while before inevitably adopting a newer version of Toronto, one which will surely inspire nostalgia in its own right.
Second photo from the Toronto Archives (fond and series information located at bottom)
Discussion
56 Comments
Sort By Oldest First / Newest First
Subscribe
Nice pictures.
St. Paul's in London is barely visible anymore except
from the River Thames and it's only a quick glance
at that.
Chateau Frontenac shall never be obscured and that
building shall forever identify Quebec city.
It seems we've lost the Royal York from the classic
view because of all the development happening south
of the Windmill Line.
Too late now to fix it.
Now it's just these uninspired plain ugly identical mirror-windowed office/condo towers. Why do developers/city planners not take these things into consideration? It's really sad.
Enjoy counting your money you heartless bastards.
It's 18 York, http://18york.pylon.ca/
It's sad to watch this city destroy itself with condos.
http://18york.pylon.ca/
Toronto has become so ugly, and yet so rich. So why are we lacking sufficient public transportation and infrastructure? Something's not connecting here. And I don't think any of our mayoral candidates are going to fix what's gone horribly wrong.
However, it's definitely true that the quality of contemporary architecture is low, and the longer we keep building like we are now, the uglier the city will get.
Anyway, I definitely agree with the majority here--that the seawall of tinted-glass condos we've erected along the lakeshore is an eyesore. TO's skyline is best viewed from east or west.
Another view that has been disrupted by condos is that of University College at U of T. Now when you look at it from the south end of King's College Circle there's a condo poking out of it on the right side. You can still get a shot of it without modernity interjecting by moving closer to it.
However - the fairly minimal (in comparison) environmental impact of condo-living vs. suburban green-space sprawl makes these condos a BENEFIT to the GTA as a whole. To house all those people elsewhere would require a much bigger carbon footprint. The old view was prettier, but if it means that some of our outlying areas can be preserved, then - well, I think it's worth it.
Although I absolutely love the view of the old-looking Royal York in front of the modern-looking bank buildings towering over it, sometimes we just gotta let it go. The Royal York is still an impressive sight when you leave the similarly impressive interior of Union Station and many tourists are able to see that when they're on the ground.
It's also very interesting to note that NYC (specifically Manhattan, the place where there's only highrises for 250 blocks) is having the same debate right now with a developer's plans to build a tall tower that will be behind the Empire State Building, making this 'classic' view different than it's been for the last while.
Chr ist it's downtown, where towers are built. The city is growing. It's ludicrous to suggest that the skyline won't change, and simply stupid to say all the new towers are ruining downtown.
Are we supposed to stop all development so some flickr head can get a clear shot of the Royal York from the ferry?
If you want to see that skyline, build a time machine and pi$$ off.
My comment is directed toward comments like
"Unfettered condo development has destroyed the downtown skyline."
"I never realized how much all these new skyscrapers ruin the lovely cityscape!"
"Now it's just these uninspired plain ugly identical mirror-windowed office/condo towers. Why do developers/city planners not take these things into consideration?"
"you'd think the city would preserve and celebrate what little character it has."
I moved overseas for several years after school, and it was during a trip back home one night that I first sensed that something was "wrong". It was dark, and the first of the condos down there weren't inhabited yet, but they had already begun to block out the familiar view of downtown. I've since moved back and have been able to observe Toronto's condo explosion up close and personal. On the one hand, I do support higher density living in cities, but so much of what has been built is very bland and lacking in character. Both the buildings, and the "neighbourhoods" that surround them. While it was probably inevitable that they would come to dominate the skyline, I personally find it a little sad.
We have iconic structures built at that time, not just from international starchitects, but also from local firms. Toronto became an a sanctuary for, and brought in many, architects. We also had, at the time, some of the world's tallest (and the tallest) buildings.
The real shame is that people dismiss these skyscrapers as "generic" and "boring".
I hope and pray though that this new influx of tenants and possible future needs for more towers will create a desire to build nice buildings. deflation in commercial real estate prices will mean developers will have more money to play with and materials will become cheaper.
Sadly, developers are of one frame of mind, make as much money on as little square footage landwise as possible. I can't wait for the condo market to crash and burn once and for all.
Let's be fair, the Royal York Hotel was really only visible from the Gardiner - which is a relic itself.
The real skyline view of Toronto hasn't included this hotel in years:
http://www.panoramio.com/photo/23439546
We should stop looking at cities as views and skyscrapers - and more from a human scale. Sidewalks, road widths, building massing, and how they meet the street are really what cities are about.
Do you expect the city to stay at a stand-still and build no new homes or hotels? Develop no new buildings for businesses and corporations? And, just because they change our skyline?
Toronto is only going to become more condensed and saturated with these supposedly dreadful money makers, move away if you are so offended. It's a city, you should welcome urban development, that's what allows cities to thrive.
Why don't you live in a small town if you hate city development so much, that way your precious and decrepit landmarks are less likely to be covered up by more modern and beautiful architecure?
God forbid city planners allow new developments be built in this city. You know, allowing more people to live and work in our city is definitely a bad move? We don't need their money......
If Vancouver can do it - putting tall towers before a planning committee that does worry about sight lines and views, why can we not?
With all the land Toronto sits on we could do so much better than jamming everything within 10 blocks of University/Dundas. This is not HK and certainly not New York, but the chaotic development going on now is disturbing.
To all those 'myeh' types, I say watch Liberty Village. That area is going to be the place to watch for everything that is wrong about this city.
In my mind, what really wouldn't make sense would be to leave the area south of union to small scale development in order to save a view of a hotel from a very small section of the highway.
And it would be a good example to compare Toronto to New York and Hong Kong - our development patterns work in much the same way. Both those cities are interesting because of the way they developed, and there downtown densities. Do we really want to follow vancouver's grand dome scheme? It seems a little boring to me.
The older parts of Cityplace could have been architecturally fantastic. Alas, not to be. Toronto's good at that.