AFAIK this was a quick and dirty proposal and it never really went anywhere beyond the pretty PDF stage. Keep in mind though that the powers that be are still around and active during the recent Gardiner debate, so who knows - some variant of this might come back as the consolation prize after the Gardiner vote.

AoD
 
It's an interesting proposal and something that I've pondered myself.

Though, looking at it, it looks like that proposal might still be problematic if you're considering a Church St extension.
 
The GET plan is not going to come about, but beyond what is soon to happen to the eastbound York-Bay-Yonge ramps, the City is now studying replacing the eastbound Jarvis ramp with one that will touch down at Yonge instead. That would clear a bit more of the way for a Church Street extension, but I will still be surprised if money is ever found for it.

I wonder how much less a bike/pedestrian only connection at the south end of Church could be built for: no doubt quite a bit less.

42
 
Having the Church St. extension in the plans doesn't necessarily fund the project - but it can make sure whatever done to the Gardiner or the area in general should be compatible with that possibility. It's more of a make sure the door don't close on it thing.

As to cost - perhaps Simcoe St. would be a guide. Approx. 50M total (2006) - half funded by the city. Perhaps a similar model can work here - though if I get to chose, doing that to Trinity St. would be my priority.

AoD
 
Last edited:
Well, for starters it looks quite densely packed in, does not transition well with either the Toronto Star building, or the remainder of the proposal, and is rather 'plain Jane', and uninspiring for such a prominent footing at the beginning of Yonge Street. Perhaps judgement should be reserved for more detailed renderings as they may will reveal the nuances of the 'south side' and redeem what appears to be a high density slight of hand.

Plus, the first proposal teased us with some interesting renderings.
 
As has been mentioned only a few posts up, this version has not been "designed" yet. What you're seeing currently is just a crude massing only: X amount of space on this site, this tall… etc. So, read more of the thread to see what other info is out there, and you might find there's less to be concerned about than you imagined.

42
 
Well, this is being presented to the Waterfront Toronto Design Review Panel now, and we will have many more images for you soon, but here's this "work-in-progress" to chew on:

IMG_8076.jpg


Have a good chew!

42
 

Attachments

  • IMG_8076.jpg
    IMG_8076.jpg
    496 KB · Views: 3,876
There looks to be minimal usage of spandrel in these images, at least. I find it hard to believe that HPA will spandrel the hell out of this thing when its such a high profile location. One Bloor east is a good example.
 
Thanks i42! It does look awfully messy (drop the balconies please, it killed the aesthetics utterly) - and the podium is weak and lack interest, especially compared to the original proposal.

It should stay as a work in progress as currently presented. I am sure the WT DRP will have a field day with it, especially considering their ask.

AoD
 
Not Bad. Has potential... the 75 storey one is quite interesting. and the 96 storey is on the right track. spandral ya, now that could be a mish mash. and very busy. but still on the right track. the materials are a make or break.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top