We wasted the architectural potential of this stretch of College - fronted by the Pharmacy Building, Ontario Hydro, Stewart Building, old TDSB, old Reference Library, Fields Institute, Lilian H Smith....and we get this garbage. Just because we as a polity kept on the argument that "architectural excellence is subjective and unquantifiable".

AoD
 
I'd say it's more because a clutch of third rate developers got all of the sites (Parallax, Shiu Pong, Knightstone). I'd say it's less on the polity and more on those who see nothing but dollar signs.
 
ProjectEnd said:
I'd say it's more because a clutch of third rate developers got all of the sites (Parallax, Shiu Pong, Knightstone). I'd say it's less on the polity and more on those who see nothing but dollar signs.
Click to expand...

You can't prevent businesses from being businesses, but the polity has no mechanism for preventing this outcome precisely because of the forementioned philosophy.

AoD
 
AlvinofDiaspar said:
You can't prevent businesses from being businesses, but the polity has no mechanism for preventing this outcome precisely because of the forementioned philosophy.

AoD
Click to expand...
Alvin, are you decrying the populace’s lack of an uprising in front of Queens Park, demanding that the government give the masses the right to determine, ummmm, architectural finishes?

42
 
Wow they actually put down grass as landscaping... and without any sort of curb or edge? And the city approved it??
I have so many questions.
 
interchange42 said:
Alvin, are you decrying the populace’s lack of an uprising in front of Queens Park, demanding that the government give the masses the right to determine, ummmm, architectural finishes?

42
Click to expand...

Not the right to determine - but the right to reject per recommendation by a professional review board (definitely not "the masses"!)

AoD
 
I know one thing, anything with the word "Haus" in it should be automatically forced to make changes for the design better before given any permission to be built, IMO. /sigh
 
The problem is that good design is not a planning policy (it was in the new Downtown Plan/TOCore but it was thrown out by the provincial government). While architectural style is subjective, no one would call this building "beautiful" or a good addition to the neighbourhood. There needs to be a clear policy, because our developers are not going to do it.
 
ProjectEnd said:
What is "good design"?
Click to expand...
In the original Downtown Plan, these were some of the policies for design excellence...

9.1 Development will:
9.1.3. demonstrate design excellence of the building and surrounding public realm;
9.1.4. demonstrate a high standard of heritage conservation; and
9.1.5. include high-quality, durable materials and sustainable and resilient building practices.

Of course, design excellence is objective and they could have done more to specify what it means. But it was a start. I think character areas could be used to encourage a specific design vision for each neighbourhood.
In my opinion, good design (no matter the style or budget) is one that uses good materials, creates character & identity, uses colour and creativity, and is aesthetically pleasing. I think Block 8 West Don Lands is a good example.
 
Last edited:
I absolutely believe that both Shiu Pong and Kirkor think they knocked it out of the park here. Because the things listed above are so nebulous (partially by design), it's impossible to verify / validate whether those goals were met. Legally, it's almost impossible to say if a building does or doesn't 'demonstrate design excellence'.

@daniel_kryz
 
ProjectEnd said:
I absolutely believe that both Shiu Pong and Kirkor think they knocked it out of the park here. Because the things listed above are so nebulous (partially by design), it's impossible to verify / validate whether those goals were met. Legally, it's almost impossible to say if a building does or doesn't 'demonstrate design excellence'.

@daniel_kryz
Click to expand...
Well that's why you could specify what good design is with character areas or urban design guidelines. Some official plans already mandate good design, like the new Golden Mile Secondary Plan. We'll just have to see how it works out.

Also, you could definitely ban monotone colours, spandrel, and window-wall systems. You could also make development enhance its heritage base's character (not just conserve it) through the new building's design. These are objective policies that would've prevented this building from getting approved.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top