I'm not a fan of too many projects in this area, but this proposal with this height and density looks great; and would act as kind of a gateway to this stretch coming in from the west under the overpass. I think that with the right execution and cladding that it would go a long way in diminishing the less-than-admired recent buildings here.
 
ProjectEnd said:
It's probably the best thing that Kirkor has ever proposed - what's your problem with it? And why not that height here? Why not leave the height but push for a true mix of uses, an excellent material palette and great public realm at-grade?

If you think this is bad, just wait until it gets value engineered.
Click to expand...

Exactly - Someone at Kirkor may have pulled off an interesting schematic design but Kirkor does not have the design savvy to pull something like this off. This will be an ugly monster.

ProjectEnd said:
It's like a poor, misguided man's Broadcasting Place by FCBS

bp_240510_03-630x944.jpg


Link
Click to expand...

Holy crap, that's one of the most blatant rip-offs I think I've ever seen. All the more reason to be wary. It's easy to Sketchup a copycat design, but it's another thing to pull it off. Kirkor will botch this up big time.

Kirkor, the firm that brought us this:
http://urbantoronto.ca/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=20875&d=1386531931
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Based on the rendering I don't see it being a 'monster' on this corner. 40 stories, then yes. But if it's concern over design savvy, then the developer and construction company are really responsible for executing the architect's vision and making it reality; and we know how sometimes that turns out. I'm more apt to blame developers for things that turn out not-so-nice than the architects. If I knew a few years ago what I know now, then...
 
RiverCity1 said:
Based on the rendering I don't see it being a 'monster' on this corner. 40 stories, then yes. But if it's concern over design savvy, then the developer and construction company are really responsible for executing the architect's vision and making it reality; and we know how sometimes that turns out. I'm more apt to blame developers for things that turn out not-so-nice than the architects. If I knew a few years ago what I know now, then...
Click to expand...

You are wrong about the role of the builder vs. the architect. It's the architects job to design and detail something achievable for the budget, and then to produce a set of drawings that will ensure the design is adhered to.

Of course the developer can then 'value-engineer' the crap out of the building even during construction, so in that sense you have a point.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
atodaso said:
You are wrong about the role of the builder vs. the architect. It's the architects job to design and detail something achievable for the budget, and then to produce a set of drawings that will ensure the design is adhered to.
Click to expand...

As far as my little mind knows, the developer hires an architect; the architect works for the developer. My personal experience in dealing with many different developers and architects also tells me this lol :p

p.s. I should have clarified and explained my points a bit better and to stress why I think that this Kirkor proposal will work here: there needs to be something vastly different than a Plaza/Urban Corp TACT Architecture designed-building in this mix. That's all. Within the Queen Triangle I feel it's all very uniform...and not in a good way. Plus, Kingsclub Condos south of the tracks is also by TACT. With all of these, plus the Streetcar buildings on Gladstone, also by TACT, it's all very TACT-looking. It's not my thing. Plus, I find the developers are also less than desirable and are to blame for hiring this firm. It's almost as if there is a zoning by-law in place that says that you can build here if you hire TACT.

I find that the non-TACT buildings stick out...and in a good way. I think that Art Condos are a gem in this mix. And I do like the RAW design proposal for Ten93 Queen West (at Dovercourt). At least it's different! To each his own opinion...and to each his own architect and developer. I'm not saying I'm a Kirkor fan...I'm just not a TACT fan lol :p
 
While I welcome the design, I don't welcome the height. I am fine with that sort of height in the area, but it should be set back from the street. This part of the city isn't downtown, and isn't a transit hub. 20-25 floors is fine, just don't have it act as a straight cliff from the sidewalk. The Carnaby does this well with the tower set back from the street so that it isn't as imposing or noticeable by passerbys.
 
innsertnamehere said:
Ahh I knew I was right about the height, when Automation Gallery is complaining about it, you just know its too tall :p
Click to expand...

Yeah, as much as i like tall buildings im also glad it got refused, why not go with the original plan of 8-10 storeys?



Solaris said:
There was a previous City Planning Preliminary Report for this site in August 2007, for a 8 storeys mixed-use proposal ... I suppose now that the West Queen West District OMB matters are resolved, the owner is going forward on Site Plan Approval for a 10 storeys mixed use proposal ~ :D

********
1181-1183 QUEEN ST W
Application # 08 213120 STE 18
Description: 10-storey mixed-use building with 107 residential dwelling units and retail at grade
Proposed Total GFA: 9,256.00 sq.m.
Proposed Units: 107
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top