AlbertC said:
design-exterior.jpg


http://bazis.ca/1-yorkville/images/design-exterior.jpg
Click to expand...

Is this the newly refined design or just another render of the original proposal?
 
That elevation looks like the original proposal - with a 33m x 23m typical floor plate

CP8P8l1.jpg
 
Is it just the picture or this this building going to look tall, long and slabish? I'm not a big fan of long, slab buildings that block out the sky, especially if they're really tall. Slim point towers look so much better.
 
it is, its floorplate (759 square meters) is slightly above the recommended maximum for condos (750 square meters). DRP recommended slimming it down in exchange for more height.
 
There's a number of buildings proposed in Toronto with larger floor plates than this.

Eau De Soleil, Massey Tower, E Condos South Tower, 2221 Yonge, Dundas Square Gardens, One Park Place to name but a few
 
I much prefer a neo-modernist "box" that is honest about what it is, to a box (with no resolution either at its base or its pinnacle) with a cheesy pattern appliquéd on its facade to try and distract people from its uninteresting floorplate.

Is there really anything to this tower other than the pattern on its elevations? It has no relationship to the street or the heritage structures, in its current iteration, and has no resolution as you scan your eyes to the top of the tower. It's like they skipped the whole "massing" and "siteplan" part of the schematic design process and jumped right into finding a pattern to slap on its facade. Not good architecture, in my opinion.

Hopefully it will evolve into something interesting that contributes to the neighbourhood apart from bringing in new residents.
 
Last edited:
I like the distinctive facade treatment, but it should be slimmed down a bit. The balcony slabs don't fit in with the cladding.
 
I quite like the facade treatment on this project. It could use further refinement, and I'm sure that will happen as the project moves through DD. It's nice to see a condo building with some texture on the facade, as opposed to all of the planar window-wall buildings that we see around the city. It would be nice if the pattern was a bit more varied as it would make the expression look more dynamic.
 
salsa said:
Is this the newly refined design or just another render of the original proposal?
Click to expand...

Project is much too tall for this location. Look at that wall of slab dwarf the very contextual 18 Yorkville. It doesn't remotely fit in here. It almost resembles the Manulife Centre.
 
SP!RE said:
I much prefer a neo-modernist "box" that is honest about what it is, to a box (with no resolution either at its base or its pinnacle) with a cheesy pattern appliquéd on its facade to try and distract people from its uninteresting floorplate.

Is there really anything to this tower other than the pattern on its elevations? It has no relationship to the street or the heritage structures, in its current iteration, and has no resolution as you scan your eyes to the top of the tower. It's like they skipped the whole "massing" and "siteplan" part of the schematic design process and jumped right into finding a pattern to slap on its facade. Not good architecture, in my opinion.

Hopefully it will evolve into something interesting that contributes to the neighbourhood apart from bringing in new residents.
Click to expand...

+1
 
CN Tower said:
Project is much too tall for this location. Look at that wall of slab dwarf the very contextual 18 Yorkville. It doesn't remotely fit in here. It almost resembles the Manulife Centre.
Click to expand...

As other buildings block the view plane suggested in the elevation (you can't stand that far back, you'd be in the reference library), I think the contrast in massing wouldn't be as noticeable at street level. To be fair though, tall buildings change the overall feel of an area even when preserving the ground level (e.g.: Five and St Nicolas). I personally like the sense of enclosure created in these districts. For wide open spaces, I can walk in the other 95% of the city.
 
This development could take a cue from the office building at Yonge & Adelaide. The windows have a similar idea to this tower, but it opens up on the bottom two floors. This could help ease the transition from the heritage buildings, and if set back a little bit, could offer some nice restaurant patio space.
 
College Park said:
As other buildings block the view plane suggested in the elevation (you can't stand that far back, you'd be in the reference library), I think the contrast in massing wouldn't be as noticeable at street level. To be fair though, tall buildings change the overall feel of an area even when preserving the ground level (e.g.: Five and St Nicolas). I personally like the sense of enclosure created in these districts. For wide open spaces, I can walk in the other 95% of the city.
Click to expand...

I agree. At least 95% of the city is short buildings and open sky, so I don't see what's so terrible about a few areas being really tall. I wish the whole city was as dense and enclosed as this proposes because I, too, love how it feels—the indoor-outdoor, sheltered feeling of extreme tall density—but at least the downtown should become more like this.

And as usual, I don't understand the contextual fit argument. Who cares if it doesn't fit in? What's important is whether it is a better or worse model for density/height. Buildings shouldn't replicate the height/density of their contexts purely for the sake of visual harmony. If most buildings in a given urban area are only two or three storeys, then they're too short, and new buildings need to set a new standard for height and density.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top