Not sure why some of you think this is so awful? There are so many examples of far more offensive proposals nearby. Would like to hear the reasoning behind the criticism.
 
Midtown Hank said:
Not sure why some of you think this is so awful? There are so many examples of far more offensive proposals nearby. Would like to hear the reasoning behind the criticism.
Click to expand...

If you read page 2 of this thread you will see reasoning provided.

In general:

The sheer size/heft of the podium is just too much. It would be too much in any material expression, its just a tank.

Its too monotonous, again, primarily this is a podium issue, not that the towers are particularly good.

While monotonous, there are a number of subtle oddities in the architectural expression that make no sense, contribute nothing and may arguably detract. Have a close look at the grade-level expression of the podium and you can see three discrete, yet awfully similar and uninspired treatments.

The design itself is just...meh; the podium reads suburban office park; the towers have other issues.

Finally, I would highlight the track record of the firm involved. Where a similar-ish project from aA would still draw disappointment, there might be some hope of saving grace in attention to the details and material palette that might make it turn out a bit better than you expect.

Where G+C's overall record tends to make people feel the render is likely optimistic. If you don't like it now, you'll like it less as-built.
 
Midtown Hank said:
Not sure why some of you think this is so awful? There are so many examples of far more offensive proposals nearby. Would like to hear the reasoning behind the criticism.
Click to expand...
I'm also in the camp that thinks the reaction is overblown. Do I think this is perfect and what I would want for the site exactly? No... but it's nowhere near the near-apocalyptic vision that I think is being evoked.

There's really just two design elements here, the first being the glassier office floors in the podium which are basically pretty clean, with some articulation in the massing to break up the otherwise monolithic quality of it a bit. A variation on the glassy podium is seen in the towers above in the reveal sections. There may be some spandrel panels up there, dunno, hope not, or if there are, that their colour is well matched with whatever coatings are on the windows. Meanwhile, the rest of the towers have a rather rigorous but staggered geometric grid placed over them for some visual appeal. This may be bigger overall, or parts of it may be bigger overall than one would want, but the gestures that break up the massing seem reasonably restrained and coordinated to me.

42
 
I don't see the podium as being vastly different from what exists today (at least in terms of scale). I appreciate the City's input. Sounds like the setback to Yonge will be greater than the current setback. From my experience this is a fairly busy pedestrian area and the added setback will be welcome. With all the development in the area, the extra sidewalk will be welcome. Hope I'm getting that right.
 
This one will be contentious. Except a lot of opposition from the Oriole Park Residents' Association and maybe Josh Matlow's office.
 
Reading some pretty negative comments in this thread. It's big, yes, but don't we need it? And the setback is apparently being increased compared to status quo. Won't this be nice for having a walkable community?
 
This is a fun thread. I’m all for 50 storeys at this intersection, but two thumbs down on the existing renders for me.
 
www.toronto.ca

Application Details

www.toronto.ca www.toronto.ca

Compliance & technical resubmission here, no stat changes.

One perspective not yet posted in thread:
PLN - Architectural Plans - 1910, 1920, 1944 Yonge St - Arch Plans-04.jpg
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top