interchange42 said:
It's Cortel whom the public consultation strategy is being run for. They'd at minimum have an option on the land pending zoning approval.

There's a good chance that this is not the design Cortel would want to have reviewed by the DRP, but wow, could IBI have offered a cheaper one?

42
Click to expand...

I would hope so if Cortel is behind this. They have done so much better under the Fernbrook banner
 
doublestandard said:
?? anyone one know what was PAID for this lot.
they havent sold since 1980 . when emilio's restaurant was beside them.
why does the city allow allow this BLAND ideas to be built
the whole east side was a blank slate , SO MUCH APATHY.
Click to expand...

The city hasn't allowed anything yet.
 
doublestandard said:
?? anyone one know what was PAID for this lot.
they havent sold since 1980 . when emilio's restaurant was beside them.
why does the city allow allow this BLAND ideas to be built
the whole east side was a blank slate , SO MUCH APATHY.
Click to expand...
The City has little or no powers over design and cannot stop 'bland ideas' from being built. (This is actually ugly but ...) In theory, they can control height and density but we all remember the OMB
 
for me, anything West of Jarvis is the Core... height should not be an issue. Jarvis and University same the distance from Yonge. Minor shadow over the Armory and the new Community Centre in Moss Park. Not sure if there is a flight path issue with St. Mike's -which impact 88 Queen development.
 
A red brick pre-cast would have gone a long way in respecting the context (as would a decent tower design ;)). And yes, this is a "1989" design which could have been proposed for anywhere, from North York to Cleveland. It is both unfortunate and lazy. Let's hope for something better.
 
Are IBI’s other projects this bad? This thing is an incoherent mash up of way too many generic and not particularly complementary design elements.
 
pman said:
Are IBI’s other projects this bad? This thing is an incoherent mash up of way too many generic and not particularly complementary design elements.
Click to expand...

It's a good point since IBI are generally shit kickers. Yet, every once in awhile, something like Delta (curtain wall), Grid (pretty decent detailing), or 411 Church (shockingly competent), seems to slip by. My experience is that this is less the result of a firm-determined position on something like 'design' or 'quality' and more the result of excellent individuals working within that organization. Another huge problem is multi-nationals like IBI, Gensler or, to a lesser degree, Dialog, not utilizing their global networks and becoming localized (eg. 'provincial') outlets of larger corporations.

Firms promoting a 'minimum standard' in terms of their details and construction quality are few and far between. In Toronto, I'd peg it a fewer than 5 working on this large a scale.
 
^ exactly what I was thinking. IBI has had a few great projects as of late - Even projects like King Blue are turning out much better than I think anyone expected.

This seems more like a huge step back for them, more so something you would expect from them 10 years ago than compared to their more recent work. There is just absolutely nothing in this that speaks of any form of competence.. I'm not sure how this would have happened. I'd be very interested to see the design process for this one.
 
Haha, i wouldn't worry too much of what has been proposed now,
.. in 3 years when it's been re-designed twice and chopped 3 times to get city approvals maybe we can talk
 
Density between Jarvis and University is fair game - although respecting shadows on Moss Park (but with part of the park being gobbled up by the new Community Centre, next to the Armoury - thee would be less shadowing on the actual outdoor part of the park ? ).
 
For the record, despite the mention of the Cortel Group in the Public Consultation Strategy filed with the City, they say that this is not them, so we have taken their name off the thread.

42
 
The existing commercial lot doesn't have long to live whether this development gets built or not. I don't see a point in settling for "anything".
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top