N

Northern Light

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
May 20, 2007
Messages
31,635
Reaction score
88,552
I know we have a thread for this, I remember discussing it here; but can't find it, points to the UT member who digs it up!

In the meantime.........

New application into the AIC:

1651139364890.png


Development Applications

City Planning COA Application Information Center
app.toronto.ca

Streetview:

Corner of Eglinton and Oswego:

1651139501781.png


Aerial Pic:

1651139565198.png


Site Size: ~2800m2/30000ft2
 
innsertnamehere said:
IBI really depends on who you get within the firm. Lots of great work coming out of the firm, lots of.. not so great work as well.
Click to expand...
Thank you! I am very tired of the posts in thread after thread about architect after architect that decries all of their work in a blanket manner, when I can show good work by nearly any of them somewhere else. Here, it's worth reminding people that the year that the Delta Toronto was completed, it won our poll for best new building... and look at that, it's IBI.

42
 
interchange42 said:
Thank you! I am very tired of the posts in thread after thread about architect after architect that decries all of their work in a blanket manner, when I can show good work by nearly any of them somewhere else. Here, it's worth reminding people that the year that the Delta Toronto was completed, it won our poll for best new building... and look at that, it's IBI.

42
Click to expand...

Yes, IBI produces a couple of winners most years, which is two more than KirKor, most years...........

But the amount of flotsam that comes out of that office is extraordinary.

We can all point out the times aA, HP, or BDPQ among others have disappointed despite being clearly capable offices; and likewise most also-rans have good days.

But it's fair enough to note which group a firm tends to end up in............
 
The only firms that are absolutely incapable of strong work are TF and G+C to me. Most of the others, even Kirkor, have put out reasonably competent buildings, with varying degrees of "bad" thrown in as well.

Honestly even TF can manage something half-competent. Only G+C seems to really put in truly 0 effort.

IBI is far from the worst firm though. Due to the volume of work they put out, they tend to have a lot of duds.. but they also do a ton of more or less massing analyses with no real design that get immediately derided despite clearly just being a rezoning exercise that isn't "real".
 
innsertnamehere said:
The only firms that are absolutely incapable of strong work are TF and G+C to me. Most of the others, even Kirkor, have put out reasonably competent buildings, with varying degrees of "bad" thrown in as well.

Honestly even TF can manage something half-competent. Only G+C seems to really put in truly 0 effort.

IBI is far from the worst firm though. Due to the volume of work they put out, they tend to have a lot of duds.. but they also do a ton of more or less massing analyses with no real design that get immediately derided despite clearly just being a rezoning exercise that isn't "real".
Click to expand...
I see both TF and G+C work that I like, and while I agree that the majority of their work has been less than what I'd like to see, I am not willing to make blanket statements declaring all of it to be bad. I am unwilling to say "this is automatically bad because it's by architectural firm X." I just don't think it's fair. One of G+C's latest, The Parker, is just about the best looking of any of recent builds near it, but how many UT contributors are even willing to give it a fair look? Frustratingly few.

I've also said a hundred times before, so why not once more for good measure, that judging the architect without taking the developer into consideration is not fair. Developers hold the purse strings and have the ultimate say, and we need to recognize that regularly.

42
 
The latest article for this proposal is very generous with the definition of "along Eglinton LRT route". Even the renders show curbside bus lanes instead.

The density's fine, but I could have made that render. It's hopelessly bland and unattractive; not even the single tree's worth of wood finish is doing anything for me.
 
This one was resubmitted in Sept '23.

It's now 14s on a smaller site, due to significant road widening concessions.

@Art Tsai will wish to make note.

First, from the Cover Letter:

1699465246386.png

1699465265917.png


Now from the Planning Addendum:

1699465321047.png


Now the plans:

1699465552827.png


1699465591323.png


1699465616725.png


Material Board:

1699465654185.png


Revised Site Plan:

1699465398908.png


Revised Ground Floor Plan:


1699465450233.png
 
New rendering updated. The height changed from 46.50m to 49.30m. The unit count changed from 169 units to 190 units. Finally, total parking changed from 62 parking to 48 parking.

Rendering taken from architectural plan via rezoning.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top