The design doesn't seem particularly coherent to me -- the various elements seem kind of random and not part of any overall vision.
 
This was the 4th building seen by the Design Review Panel today, with the panel voting 4 to 3 for redesign. We'll have a front page story on this in the next day or two.

42
 
If you're still wondering why this development was denied,... maybe you should compare it to Tridel's HullmarkCentre (approved and completed),... especially its north tower,.... and I would even speculate that this developer, DavPart, used Tridel's HullmarkCentre's north tower as a template design.
- Both are main corners sites at subway-subway/LRT interchanges.
- Both are mixed use with retail on ground floor, then offices stories, then residential condo on top.
- Both have north-south driveways to east parallel to Yonge street
- Both have similar general overall shape, material use and colour scheme but different fin design

Tridel HullmarkCentre's north tower has much more prominent office lobby and subway entrance,.... whereas this proposal reduced the subway entrance to basically a hole in the wall. The main difference is Tridel HullmarkCentre north tower is 45 storey of which 12 storey office at base and 33 storey condo on top,... for an almost 1:4 office:total ratio. Whereas this development is 68 storey of which only 8 storey office at base and 60 storey condo on top,.... for an almost 1:8 office:total ratio. If this developer improve the ratio by increasing office storey at the expense of residential condo and chop height to under 200m then they'll have better luck.

So why would I even speculate that this developer, DavPart, used Tridel HullmarkCentre's north tower as a template for this development proposal??? Take a guess,... but do "take that with a grain of salt".
 
I hope they're not proposing condo offices here as well though ?
 
The building has not been "denied". The Design Review Panel has asked for a redesign.

It's not a 68 storey tower, it's a 65 storey tower. The first version was 68, but working with the Planning Department, the height has already been reduced to fit under a tent-like shape that decreases in height on either side of it, this building being the 'tentpole' in the middle. The ratio of office to residential here has to do with replacing the office space that's found in the building currently on the site, and then building as much residential above it as possible while still keeping Planning happy; it has nothing to do with the ratio that exists at the Hullmark Centre. That building was not cited at the DRP, neither by the proponent nor by any panelist, as an appropriate development for comparison's sake.

42
 
interchange42 said:
The building has not been "denied". The Design Review Panel has asked for a redesign.

It's not a 68 storey tower, it's a 65 storey tower. The first version was 68, but working with the Planning Department, the height has already been reduced to fit under a tent-like shape that decreases in height on either side of it, this building being the 'tentpole' in the middle. The ratio of office to residential here has to do with replacing the office space that's found in the building currently on the site, and then building as much residential above it as possible while still keeping Planning happy; it has nothing to do with the ratio that exists at the Hullmark Centre. That building was not cited at the DRP, neither by the proponent nor by any panelist, as an appropriate development for comparison's sake.

42
Click to expand...

The problem with your "tentpole" argument is the tentpole itself sticks out much higher above the rest of the surrounding tent fabric. City Planning and good urban design uses linear line for height arguments.

See second image: The Elevation diagram looking east - your tentpole argument, holds when using Minto1 & 2,... but when using the closer higher Minto 2 and 2221 Yonge then this proposal is too high and should be chopped closer to 200m,.... more inline with E-condo at the opposite corner on north side of Yonge.
http://urbantoronto.ca/news/2016/03/design-review-panel-questions-davparts-1-eglinton-east-plan

The previous development at Tridel HullmarkCentre site was a post-war 1 level retail plaza with the odd dental and diet office. When Tridel HullmarkCentre development application went through City Planning, City Planning wound NOT have been happy to have just replace the office space that was there previously,.... thus having office space for just 1 office dental office and 1 diet office in the new Tridel HullmarkCentre development wouldn't have kept City Planning happy. City Planning insisted on much more office space than what was there previously and fought hard to get 12 storey of office space in Tridel HullmarkCentre's North Tower and 3 storey of office space in the Podium.

The interesting aspect is now after the failures of office condo at Tridel HullmarkCentre and EmeraldPark (they sell out but about 80% remain empty, thus they don't contribute to employment growth that city expected),.... City Planning have monitored this situation and are very aware of it,.... so will City Planning be more aggressive in demanding even more office space and better office ratios.

Just replacing the current 8 storey office space with office condo will really result in loosing 6 storey of office space,... if you factor in 80% of the office condo will remain empty. This development proposal should have a much higher office space component,.... more in line with 16 to 24 storey of office space.
 
Last edited:
taal said:
I hope they're not proposing condo offices here as well though ?
Click to expand...


At this stage of the development application, the developer usually doesn't say anything about office condo VS regular office space,... and they generally don't have to. City Planning has NO say on how small the office space are partitioned, thus no say on office condo VS regular office space. The only time you'll hear wind of office condo will be once the sales starts for the office condo.

But make no mistake, this developer - DavPart - is very aware of office condo. DavPart is very aware of the office condo situation at Tridel HullmarkCentre's North Tower. It's no mere coincidence that this tower proposal resembles Tridel HullmarkCentre's North Tower. I would say that DavPart has been monitoring the Tridel HullmarkCentre development application, design, construction, and completion,... very, very closely,... it's hard for them not to!!! This developer is aware that office condo will sell out quickly but yet most will remain empty like the 80% empty condo office units at Tridel HullmarkCentre (North Tower and Podium). The developer's main concern is selling all their units,.... and office condo sells,.... regular office space outside downtown core is very tough sell.

At community meetings for Tridel HullmarkCentre and EmeraldPark, there was never any mention of office condos. At the community meeting for 4050 Yonge (northwest corner of Yonge & YorkMills/Wilson) they developer (EastonGroup-SteveGrupta) did mention office condo but that development was different in that it was converting a previously approved TTC head office proposal with large regular office space into a proposal where these office space were converted to hotel space and partitioned into office condos.

And generally nobody will realize that 80% of these office condos will remain empty until a few years after these developments are completed.
 
That's all supposition. Sure, they might try office condo here, and they might not. If they do, and if investors rush in, they rush in. They'll find out alter if they have made a good investment or not. I'm not personally concerned that the offices here might be condo, one way or the other. I'm also not bothered if you try to warn people off of office condos: investors should be aware that office condo space is not a slam-dunk to riches. In the end I believe that it's the investor's choice of what to do with their money, and how informed they made themselves before purchasing. If it were me, I would want to be warned of the risk.

It's also a supposition of yours that DavPart would be monitoring the Hullmark Centre closely. I don't see all the parallels that you do, at least not in ways that make 1 Eglinton East so uniquely a copy of the Hullmark Centre, and not of other mixed-use buildings. I think you're cherry-picking details that support a conclusion you've already come to. Why is it so important for you to inextricably link these two buildings?

42
 
Actually I have bothered that office condo space would be deemed expectable, and we all should be ... to date I've never seen a medium -> large firm so any interest in office condo space, rather it's been marketed to more smaller business (lawyers / doctors / ...); I think the huge condo-office development at Yonge and York mills will prove whether there is an appetite for larger players; Lets assume there isn't, it's a huge mistake to allow an existing building (which has a mixture of tenants) to be delegated to a smaller niche set of office market tenants ... given its location ...
 
interchange42 said:
That's all supposition. Sure, they might try office condo here, and they might not. If they do, and if investors rush in, they rush in. They'll find out alter if they have made a good investment or not. I'm not personally concerned that the offices here might be condo, one way or the other. I'm also not bothered if you try to warn people off of office condos: investors should be aware that office condo space is not a slam-dunk to riches. In the end I believe that it's the investor's choice of what to do with their money, and how informed they made themselves before purchasing. If it were me, I would want to be warned of the risk.

It's also a supposition of yours that DavPart would be monitoring the Hullmark Centre closely. I don't see all the parallels that you do, at least not in ways that make 1 Eglinton East so uniquely a copy of the Hullmark Centre, and not of other mixed-use buildings. I think you're cherry-picking details that support a conclusion you've already come to. Why is it so important for you to inextricably link these two buildings?

42
Click to expand...


Interchange42, what you call "investors" in office condo are NOT looking for a "slam-dunk to riches",... the vast majority of them are NOT even looking to rent/lease out their office condo space (as per the 80% empty office condo space at Tridel HullmarkCentre). Their primary objective isn't to make money,... it's to help preserve their wealth.

BTW, I found it interesting that the Design Review Panel noted the office lobby for this development proposal was hidden, not grand enough and undersized,... why would a developer design a grand, highly visible large office lobby and entrance if they expect the vast majority of their office space to be empty???

Huh,... you think I'm trying to warn "investors" off office condos,.... here on urbantoronto.ca,.... dude, this is definitely the wrong demographic! I seriously doubt office condo "investors" would be reading urbantoronto.ca

City Planning fight hard to get any office space development in prime locations like this because it creates employment land in prime transit friendly locations. When development proposal comes in like this trying to minimize office space as much as possible as in "just replace whatever office space is on-site" (from a office building built many decades ago) even though area is now undergoing serious intensification. And once they get development approval, whatever office space they must build they convert to office condos. Sure office condo sell for the developer,... but the vast majority of "investors" that buys the office condos do not intend to rent/lease them out,... thus, the employment area and good office jobs that City Planning was relying on never materializes. This is NOT the way to build a live-able urban centre,.... this is the way to build vertical sleeping communities which is what midtown is fast becoming without a proper balance between office and residential.

Interchange42,... it is NOT just a supposition of mine that DavPart have been monitoring Tridel HullmarkCentre closely,.... I'm not drawing "parallels" and "cherry-picking" details out of my @ss. Interchange42, what do you really know about DavPart???? http://urbantoronto.ca/database/profiles/davpart DavPart is primarily a property management firm that is just getting into development,.. so who will DavPart emulate? A lousy developer like Bazis or a good developer like Tridel? Where is DavPart head-office located? Top floor of 4576 Yonge Street (Suite 700),... basically just north of Highway 401 with perfect view of 4789 Yonge Street - HullmarkCentre about 400m away,... And since the only local transit access for DavPart employees is via Tridel HullmarkCentre's TTC subway entrances; I would even go so far as saying some DavPart employees are at Tridel HullmarkCentre multiple times every single working day! Both are in my hood,... where I always see and hear interesting things,.... Look, DavPart has front row seats to view Tridel HullmarkCentre development, construction and completion,..... even you must admit there are a lot of visual similarities to the completed Tridel HullmarkCentre's North Tower and 1 Eglinton East proposal goes much further than just "of other mixed-use buildings",... add the little public square to the west along Yonge, add in the driveway canopy overhang along the east side and various lip-overhang accent near ground level,... and you'll see how DavPart have borrowed heavily from Tridel HullmarkCentre's North Tower.


1Eglinton_rendering1.jpeg
HullmarkCentre_rendering.jpg
 

Attachments

  • 1Eglinton_rendering1.jpeg
    1Eglinton_rendering1.jpeg
    86.5 KB · Views: 696
  • HullmarkCentre_rendering.jpg
    HullmarkCentre_rendering.jpg
    99.5 KB · Views: 645
Last edited:
The design of the tower was fine - it's the design review panel that needs to be redesigned. A group of wanna be designers that have too much time on their hands so they ask for architects to perform a complete redesign.

I agree the subway access needs to be more obvious but a complete redesign is ridiculous.
 
"wannabe designers" ????

  • Gordon Stratford, Senior VP and Director of Design, is responsible for the creative vision of HOK’s multi-disciplinary, sustainability-driven Canadian design team.
  • Born and educated in Montreal, Michael Leckman studied architecture at the University of Toronto. Upon graduation he joined Diamond and Schmitt and was named principal in 2003.Michael is recognized for providing design leadership on complex institutional projects, shaping a critical debate as Vice Chair of Toronto's Design Review Panel, and contributing to design education as assistant professor, guest critic, lecturer and mentor at University of Waterloo and Ryerson University schools of architecture.
  • Carl Blanchaer has served as Design Principal on many of the most important WZMH projects of the past two decades. His recent work has encompassed a broad range of building types, including commercial, hospitality and institutional projects.
  • A founding partner of Montgomery Sisam Architects, David Sisam has over 35 years of experience in urban design and architecture. Under his guidance Montgomery Sisam has developed a reputation for design leadership that is supported by over 45 provincial, national and international awards
  • Ralph Giannone leads Giannone Petricone Associates Inc. Architects in fulfilling a vision for a diverse practice whose work, no matter what type or scale is infused with exceptional rigor in design details and an extraordinary passion for urbanism.
  • Meg is a Principal at superkül, a Toronto-based architecture practice founded in 2002 and recognized as one of Canada’s leading design firms. Superkül’s commitment to design excellence, pragmatism, and sustainability has resulted in numerous architecture and design awards and the publication of the practice’s work locally, nationally and internationally.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top