Automation Gallery said:
Yeah, either that or he owns a south view pad @ 18 Yorkville:D
Click to expand...

Neither. Although I do take issue with Bazis' poor record of completed projects vs virtual ones, both here and elsewhere around town. Furthermore, I'd argue, again and again and again, that this intersection does not deserve a 50 storey building. It will ruin the streetscape of yorkville and that would be a terrible waste. There simply is no precedent for it. The corner is the corner and the step downs from there should not be nearly this high.

Do you wanna wager that the wind here will be unbearable? Furthermore, you made no comments as to the affects of shadowing.

On the slight chance it gets approved at these unacceptable heights in sincerely hope someone in the vicinity appeals it.
 
"Again and again and again." Uhhh, yeah, that certainly seems to be an accurate statement. So, as a matter of interest, is Bay and Yorkville a more major intersection than Yonge and Yorkville?
 
Exactly. There is a Yorkville precedent for a 186 metre building of course. Just across the street and down the block is the 204 metre Four Seasons.

42
 
CN Tower said:
Neither. Although I do take issue with Bazis' poor record of completed projects vs virtual ones, both here and elsewhere around town.
Click to expand...

You mean their "record" of one building? I agree that Crystal Blu is an awful building, but one project is hardly enough to damn the rest of their portfolio. Every developer has stinkers in their portfolio. Sure, it makes sense to be cautious about them, but you're railing against them like they're Pinnacle or Canderel. On paper, their latest projects have the potential to be quite beautiful, which is already more than can be said about a lot developers.

CN Tower said:
Furthermore, I'd argue, again and again and again, that this intersection does not deserve a 50 storey building. It will ruin the streetscape of yorkville and that would be a terrible waste. There simply is no precedent for it. The corner is the corner and the step downs from there should not be nearly this high.
Click to expand...

I don't know why you think arguing the same position "again and again and again" without actually addressing people's counterarguments will somehow magically make you right. That's not debating - it's just shouting. You didn't even try to refute my point that this tower properly steps down in height from the intersection given its location between One Bloor to 18 Yorkville, aside from just yelling, "it's too high!" I have no idea what you mean by "the corner is the corner" but gradual transitions in height from highrise nodes to lowrise areas is something that planning staff have consistently called for across the city.

If you want a precedent for height in this area, look no further than the Four Seasons which is on the same street as this project. It's actually further from Yonge & Bloor, closer to the heart of Yorkville, and taller than this project. It's also much worse at street level in terms of the pedestrian experience.

Speaking of which, just how will 1 Yorkville ruin the streetscape of Yorkville? The last I checked this site is the home of some dreary one-storey buildings housing a Rogers store, drycleaners, a cafe and a hair salon. It's actually one of the deadest parts of the entire neighbourhood.

CN Tower said:
Do you wanna wager that the wind here will be unbearable? Furthermore, you made no comments as to the affects of shadowing.
Click to expand...

What exactly are you basing your prediction on regarding the wind? Unlike 18 Yorkville, this tower is going to be setback from Yonge by the lowrise storefronts which will divert the wind before it hits the street.

And I hate to break it to you, but even at 115 metres, the height of 18 Yorkville - which you've been calling for here, this tower will still shadow the parkette across the street.

CN Tower said:
On the slight chance it gets approved at these unacceptable heights in sincerely hope someone in the vicinity appeals it.
Click to expand...

I think you're in for a surprise if you think this tower has only a slight chance of being approved at this or a similar height.
 
Last edited:
CN Tower said:
Neither. Although I do take issue with Bazis' poor record of completed projects vs virtual ones, both here and elsewhere around town. Furthermore, I'd argue, again and again and again, that this intersection does not deserve a 50 storey building. It will ruin the streetscape of yorkville and that would be a terrible waste. There simply is no precedent for it. The corner is the corner and the step downs from there should not be nearly this high.

Do you wanna wager that the wind here will be unbearable? Furthermore, you made no comments as to the affects of shadowing.

On the slight chance it gets approved at these unacceptable heights in sincerely hope someone in the vicinity appeals it.
Click to expand...

Ramako and Interchange have both mentioned a number of contextual projects of similar height. There's also the Cumberland Terrace proposal directly south, 50 Bloor to the south west and the twin Wallman thing just down the block...
 
CN Tower said:
Neither. Although I do take issue with Bazis' poor record of completed projects vs virtual ones, both here and elsewhere around town. Furthermore, I'd argue, again and again and again, that this intersection does not deserve a 50 storey building. It will ruin the streetscape of yorkville and that would be a terrible waste. There simply is no precedent for it. The corner is the corner and the step downs from there should not be nearly this high.

Do you wanna wager that the wind here will be unbearable? Furthermore, you made no comments as to the affects of shadowing.

On the slight chance it gets approved at these unacceptable heights in sincerely hope someone in the vicinity appeals it.
Click to expand...

I understand you don't like the design. may be you will love it after the completion.
 
interchange42 said:
Exactly. There is a Yorkville precedent for a 186 metre building of course. Just across the street and down the block is the 204 metre Four Seasons.

42
Click to expand...

Four Seasons
-landmark building with 5 star hotel
-stunning architecture
-reputable developer
-public open space

1 Yorkville
-questionable developer
-fuzzy proposal with principally disposable units
-horrible podium integration
-gives nothing to the community in open space, etc.
-huge shadows
-towers over neighboring building 18 yorkville
 
Four Seasons
-Irrelevant
-Subjective
-Subjective
-Much larger project on much larger site

1 Yorkville
-Subjective
-Incorrect. Very real proposal with very real units
-Subjective
-You don't know this. Are you privy to the S.37 negotiations? If so, enlighten us
-Show us a shadow study. I'm sure there's one on the Planning Dept. site for this
-So do/will many things in the neighbourhood. Newer buildings being taller than an older ones is pretty much how cities have developed over thousands of years

And to Ramako's point, this isn't a discussion, you're just going around in circles.
 
With regards to the shadow study for this project there is one on here - http://www1.toronto.ca/wps/portal/c...nnel=1be452cc66061410VgnVCM10000071d60f89RCRD

although DRP didn't think it was thorough enough

From the Nov 14 DRP minutes on the project

Shadow Study and Shadow Impact
Panel raised concerns both with the shadow study and the shadow impact of the proposal:

– They felt the study was misleading, in that not all publically accessible open spaces were
high-lighted e.g. the two open spaces on Yorkville immediately north-east of the proposal appear
to be significantly impacted by shadowing of this proposal

– Given that the proposal will cast new shadows on these public spaces during the time of
prime usage, Panel felt it was difficult to support in its current form

Subsequently, Members expressed a desire to see a comprehensive commitment to sunlight
protection on these open spaces (one the conditions for support within the vote was a reduction in
tower floor plate size)
Click to expand...
 
Now let's pretend to be shocked that it didn't receive support based on the impact of the proposal, even though its massing is literally just a floorplate extruded 58 storeys. No regard to framing (small) views (I realize they will change quickly as new developments crop up), taking advantage of daylighting, or architectural problem-solving. It's also a bit insulting to the public that they highlighted the parks... in a SHADOW study! Clarity of communication and communicating an accurate message is not difficult, and they should have known better.

Yonge Street north of Bloor deserves some sort of architectural articulation and interesting massing, not just another point tower.
 
urbandreamer said:
Any design that is influenced by this dreamer's sketches is good enough for me. What happens behinds closed doors is ... none of my business.
Click to expand...

If you are implying that Roy Varacalli was directly influenced by one of your sketches, I would like to see some evidence backing that claim.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top