Right across from the Staples site as well. I'm guessing 8-12 storeys here.

1545191799672.png
 
ADRM said:
I would think more than that, given that they're going 20+ right across the street to the north.
Click to expand...
The height would normally be determined here—no matter what the community wants—by Toronto's Mid-Rise Building Guidelines being applied on the depth of the lot. Those have been quite successful at determining how tall the building can be, and the building would normally terrace down to the low-rise neighbourhood behind it… but there isn't one immediately behind it here: there's the surface parking lot built over the Yonge subway, and then behind that you get a commercial building. I imagine the neighbours who are just a little further away would want the standard Mid-Rise Guidelines applied here, but I don't see the most typical conditions here, and I suspect @ADRM that you're right that they'll go for a little more than a typical Avenues style building here.

42
 
It's looks like a stack of odd-sized boxes. Awkward and unpleasing. It also clashes with the surrounding built form. A building should fit into its context not fight against it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: xy3
Paul Aitken said:
It also clashes with the surrounding built form. A building should fit into its context not fight against it.
Click to expand...

I'm not a huge fan of the design, but I think it's quite difficult to argue that it won't fit into its context (which will be quite different when this would be built as compared to present state). Recognizing that the design and materiality may change or evolve, there's a pretty strong connection to some of the design language in the Cobe project (The James at Scrivener Square) now under construction immediately across the street to the north, and they also seem to be depicting some sort of masonry that would look to be in line with the finishes that we'll see on the Audax-designed building (1140 Yonge) immediately across the street to the west. Then the south is a gas station, and then it's difficult to tell how far east the assembly extends, but the east frontage would either be a surface parking lot, or the little commercial building that Serendipity Point Films is (or was?) in, which is again grey masonry.

I think this is actually very contextual, I just don't love the design and think it would benefit from some some more humanizing treatments at grade.
 
Paul Aitken said:
It's looks like a stack of odd-sized boxes. Awkward and unpleasing. It also clashes with the surrounding built form. A building should fit into its context not fight against it.
Click to expand...
Nah. I quite like this. There's a strong, Chipperfied, austerity to it.

If one likes the design or doesn't is one thing, but that we should all defer to the Jacobian, 'new buildings should fit their context' is easily-discredited, ahistoricist, pabulum with which I cannot get on board.
 
Last edited:
aA dosen't fit this location. It feels too industrial, it would be okay on the waterfront, but not Rosedale.

I'm not a fan of the big expansive sheets of glass and oversized ceilings of the retail. Retail should be cozy and inspiring, with hidden nooks and crannies. Somthing like Passage Verdeau in Paris is what I think retail should aspire to be.

I'd personally rather see AUDAX, SHoP architects, or Wengle design this.

Even somthing more restrained and modernist like Forest Hill Condos or The Brant Park condos would be tolerable here.

This stacked box stuff seems more geared to a 30 somthing yuppie neighborhood
 
Last edited:
ADRM said:
That northern ground plane also certainly leaves something to be desired.
Click to expand...

To me, this is the clear flaw; and the retail level in general, from what we can see.

It breaks up the small storefront character of this section of Yonge.

To be fair, the gas station and mundane plaza there currently aren't any better.

But I never want the standard for the new to be that it's better than the crap that's there now.

That is simply too low a bar to set.

Above the retail/podium, I'm ok with this idea.

I certainly don't need to see some neo-historical here.

Though, done well, there's nothing wrong w/that (though it rarely is, done well).

But contrast is fine.

So long as it can deliver a vibrant street; and a pleasant, interesting building.
 
Northern Light said:
I certainly don't need to see some neo-historical here.
Click to expand...
Do you live in the area? Does the entire city have to be homogenous and contemporary to fit one person's taste? For example, it's probably a positive that Humber Bay Shores wasnt designed to appease my own architectural tastes. For all its flaws, the monolithic green glass towers (and parkade podiums) have given that area a kind of mini Biscayne , mini Miami identity that kind of works. Bespoke Audax midrises or Robert Stern highrises would be out of place there, just as they'd be out of place at Ossington and Dupont or Sterling Rd.

Is X Condos 'neo historical' since clearly is a derivative of Mies Van Der Rohe ?

I think somthing like the podium of 31R Parliment proposal would be a much more appropriate alternative to this aA design, based on your valid critique of the podium of this proposal being too monolithic and austere. I agree with you there.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top