The very tall U Condos project is immediately north of the park though. In fact, adjoining on the same block.
... How does the park affect the height for this project but not U?

i'm confused with all this park talk,

In Toronto, shadows are cast north. It doesn't much matter that U is closer to the park since the shadows it casts won't affect the parkland to the south.
 
In Toronto, shadows are cast north. It doesn't much matter that U is closer to the park since the shadows it casts won't affect the parkland to the south.

still though, it's park is due north of this cresford site, meaning that the shadows will have cleared it by around noon (for what it's worth).
 
Gorgeous scale models by Myles Burke on Twitter of this stunning project:

http://twitter.com/#!/myles_burke

1tausand.jpg


1tausand2.jpg


1tausand3.jpg
 
Oh wow! Now I see why this is so awesome! The first night renderings didn't make the shuffled balconies clear. This is looking very nice.
 
This is pretty much just an infill project to me, but I do love this view a lot:

1tausand2.jpg
 
Pics taken Nov 5, 2011

ZB2iD.jpg



OfudN.jpg



bl7T9.jpg


The building south of the Bistro 990 is for sale. Does anyone know the fate of the Bistro property?
btnnY.jpg
 
cresford bought Bistro990 in the summer and will presumably incorporate it into the 1000 Bay development....based on the renderings above it looks like they won't be preserving any of 990's heritage elements. my gut still tells me that these guys will go through another rezoning process on this site now that 990 is involved (and since the existing height permission is low at 32 storeys).
 
Most condos in this city are "infills," excepting in areas like Donlands and up around the Stockyards. Remarkable though how infills have completely changed the texture of this city: I've lived in the Grenville area since I was a kid, and I remember 21 Grenville being "tall."
 
Thanks for the pics of the model. It looks pretty good - I like what's going on with the horizontal differentiation on the balconies. It looks like a handsome and pleasing way to bring in some texture.
 
Playing with balconies seems to be the current vogue in Toronto architecture. I understand that it's a cheap way to give a building interest, but I much prefer more substantial architectural statements that do something with the actual building structure, such as Absolute World and L.
 
I'm sure somebody here with more construction expertise can explain further, but playing with the balconies is more than just a so-called "cheap way to give a building interest". The lack of a standardized floor plate adds to the cost and complexity of construction, and is likely more expensive than producing those cheap wavy things that litter Lakeshore and the Humber Bay area.

Though decried as vacuous boxes, the minimalist detailing and shapes are in response to a (thankfully) popular trend of neo-Modernism, rather than supposed pure corporate greed. The higher quality glass and finishing touches on better condos such as CASA (and other similar aA buildings) are a testament to this. Buildings like Trump, Malibu and Pinnacle may appear more complex to the casual observer, but their cheap materials and/or clumsy designs come off cheaper than a well executed box.

I don't intend on sounding like a blind aA/neo-Modernist defender, but it's tiring to hear the same cheap box routine in every thread. Excluding a couple missteps, our sleek glassy boxes will stand the test of time a lot better than dated, try-too-hard, over-styled condos. Just take a look at most 1980s PoMo. Absolute World and the L Tower are great designs, but it's not realistic to expect that every condo be designed by world-famous architects, or through international design competitions. People love local, so let's embrace our local talent.
 
Last edited:

Back
Top