LUVIT!
Senior Member
Hmm... I never thought that this stretch of King W. was run down?
- Thread starter westtoeast
- Start date
TheSix
Active Member
Hmmm... What is your definition of "run-down"? Just curious as I'd argue the opposite.
karledice
Active Member
lol they host the TIFF across the street at Roy Thompson every year
I don't think they'd wanna showcase this part of town to all the A listers if it was rundown
I don't think they'd wanna showcase this part of town to all the A listers if it was rundown
GenerationLee
Senior Member
Run down? A stretch of King laden with entertainment venues, restaurants and many businesses not to mention hosting TIFF annually *cough close enough*
This is central downtown...theres a lot of places that have elements of being "rundown" in this city, but even thats starting to become something of the past with higher land values.
This is central downtown...theres a lot of places that have elements of being "rundown" in this city, but even thats starting to become something of the past with higher land values.
ADRM
Senior Member
If by run down we mean one of the most vibrant stretches of the city, then I guess so?
Yegger
Active Member
As someone who works in the area and passes by this corner frequently, the heritage buildings are not in the best shape and the streetscape needs some TLC. I don't see how the composition of uses (entertainment or otherwise) has any bearing on the condition of the built environment. A refresh is needed along King Street, especially in front and west of the Royal Alexandria.
The chairs and trees are on the south side depicted are on the south side
AlbertC
Superstar
Reminder that there's a Virtual Town Hall meeting for this project online tonight at 7 PM:
Big Daddy
Senior Member
It would appear that this building was designed by engineers, not an architect. When I see some of the exciting buildings being built in other cities, this just isn't on the same page. It's certainly big but I would argue the location deserves something...more. Be a little creative maybe?
ProjectEnd
Superstar
Not sure why so many here are expecting this thing to do backflips or that Toronto is [once again] getting short changed. SHoP do more subtle work in NYC too. Consider 2 Hudson Square:
Those who think we're getting a 111W57 or a 9 DeKalb here are the ones dreaming. 111W57 doesn't even make sense in NYC in 2020. It was a product of a particular time and place. It will probably be repeated, yes, but the fundamentals of its economics just don't make sense now, and certainly don't make sense in Toronto.
Renderings Revealed For SHoP Architects-Designed Skyscraper at 2 Hudson Square, in Lower Manhattan - New York YIMBY
Official renderings have been released of the 450,380-square-foot, 26-story, mixed-use building coming to 2 Hudson Square.
www.newyorkyimby.com
Those who think we're getting a 111W57 or a 9 DeKalb here are the ones dreaming. 111W57 doesn't even make sense in NYC in 2020. It was a product of a particular time and place. It will probably be repeated, yes, but the fundamentals of its economics just don't make sense now, and certainly don't make sense in Toronto.
Big Daddy
Senior Member
Not sure why so many here are expecting this thing to do backflips or that Toronto is [once again] getting short changed. SHoP do more subtle work in NYC too. Consider 2 Hudson Square:
Renderings Revealed For SHoP Architects-Designed Skyscraper at 2 Hudson Square, in Lower Manhattan - New York YIMBY
Official renderings have been released of the 450,380-square-foot, 26-story, mixed-use building coming to 2 Hudson Square.www.newyorkyimby.com
Those who think we're getting a 111W57 or a 9 DeKalb here are the ones dreaming. 111W57 doesn't even make sense in NYC in 2020. It was a product of a particular time and place. It will probably be repeated, yes, but the fundamentals of its economics just don't make sense now, and certainly don't make sense in Toronto.
Saying we're no worse off than NY, isn't saying much. I still wish that somehow the city had a mechanism to require better design. 2 Hudson Square is admittedly no better but that doesn't diminish the desire for something better at such a scale and at such an address here. "...and certainly don't make sense in Toronto." What does that mean? Toronto isn't worthy of better design?
He's trying to tell you, I believe, that…
1) this is the beneficiary of more architectural creativity than you're giving it credit for, that there are (admittedly subtle) design details that will nevertheless make a difference when you're up close, (the kind of thing we hope for in every project), and
2) that there are economic realities at play that cannot be ignored.
Consider how long we have been waiting for a certain project at the other end of the block, mostly because the "more creative stuff" of its initial versions have simply been unaffordable/unbuildable.
I think we all want to see something good go up here. I'm personally in no rush to see something new rise here, and I might want anything new here to not happen until something (more?) worthy goes up… but I recognize that landowners have rights to submit redevelopment applications whenever, that the City has standards—planning formulas for density, height, etc—against which the proposal will be reviewed, that the City will ask the DRP to take a look (and they'll only be able to suggest revisions if members have any they'd like considered). That's the extent that the City has been given power by the provincial government to do architecturally.
It's not likely that you're going to persuade the provincial government to give Toronto more powers to exert more architectural control, so we're stuck with the current regulatory and economic situations, and we just have to get on with the planning process, as this submission has been made and the clock is ticking.
'
42
AlvinofDiaspar
Moderator
Even if the province gave the city powers to exert more architectural control (extremely unlikely, but let's entertain that thought), I am not sure if this project should be the focus - vs. the truly bad-to-at-best-mediocre proposals out there.
AoD
Strange Advance
Active Member
If I may make a friendly suggestion to UT admins, it would be to add a "Pre-Approval" designation to the summaries at the top of the page. "Pre-Construction" kind of connotes that a development is beyond the approvals stage and ready to get underway.
I don't know who may have watched last night's Virtual Town Hall, but for anyone who has been following the thread and our coverage, you wouldn't have learned a lot more about the building. It was fun to listen to Gregg Pasquarelli talk about SHoP's portfolio as slides illustrated his points. I did ask one question on behalf of those who have posed it on this thread, rather expecting the answer I got, namely;
Q: It appears that the cladding of 212 King will be finely detailed and very textural, but the massing of the building, compared to most towers in SHoP's portfolio, is rather tame. Could the building be reworked to make it as appealing from a distance as it seems it will be from close up?
A: We don't makes shapes just to make shapes. I believe what we've put together has a restrained elegance to it.
So, for anyone who wanted to know, there you have it.
42
Q: It appears that the cladding of 212 King will be finely detailed and very textural, but the massing of the building, compared to most towers in SHoP's portfolio, is rather tame. Could the building be reworked to make it as appealing from a distance as it seems it will be from close up?
A: We don't makes shapes just to make shapes. I believe what we've put together has a restrained elegance to it.
So, for anyone who wanted to know, there you have it.
42
ProjectEnd
Superstar
At the end of the day, a box is by far the best and most efficient building shape. There's no getting around that truth.