[egotrippin]

re: livability: Except when they have a giant pillar in the living room.

Is this something that is simply easier in terms of construction of a building, or is it stylistic ala "loft" living? aA is not the only culprit here, so my apologies for picking on them, but aA tends to use glass for almost all exterior walls in their designs which results in these pillars which are a huge inefficiency, in my opinion.

Didn't think of that, actually. They are a necessity of course, unless the building's outer walls are structural (I don't think many condos are built that way though). From places I've been in though, they're still less of an obtrusion than curved walls, which can't be fully utilized without custom furniture.

I tried constructive criticism, but certain pretentious members just wave it off as "lol u dnt kno arkitecshure". I had quite the writeup of what i specifically didn't like about some recent aA buildings (and in the same post talked about the aA buildings I absolutely love), but if people aren't going to have an open mind, what's the point?

Fair enough. I suppose we'll never all be running around holding hands, dancing under rainbows, so I think we should all just agree to disagree.

 

[agoraflaneur]

Only in Toronto would such a regular group of competent modernist buildings inspire such a joyless circle-jerk of smug self-congratulation. Knock yourself out, boys.

Twee and ridiculous.

CN, your criticism and drawings add so much to this forum. But on this score, not so much. I would really like to know what buildings in other cities (or here) you deem praiseworthy. I am certainly not satisfied by aA's work, nor of that of most of the city. But my only points for comparison are San Fran, NYC, Boston, Chicago, Hong Kong, Paris, London, Mexico City and a number of other European and America cities (I did a road trip around America 4 years ago and saw every major city except for Denver, Houston, and Dallas - though in my European travels I sadly have not seen Berlin or Frankfurt, which are both putting up new buildings).

Of course HK,NYC,London, Paris (to a certain extent), and Chicago have better buildings going up. But I also notice a lot of mediocrity. And at the prices charged, I would expect no less than these cities to outshine us. I suppose Australia would be a better comparison, and from what I have seen their architecture is indeed nicely executed, perhaps better. Buildings like the Comcast centre in Philly certainly are nicer than any here; in SF not a lot has really happened but some condos I saw were quite nice and just above Freedville in execution (such as in the SoMa area), but no large towers.

I guess my point is that other than the 4S, Shangri-La, Trump, Ritz, etc. I don't think I can really compare on the same level. The Ritz is a bit disappointing, but the 4S is looking okay - maybe not compared to some other places, though since it is just a box form with decent glass - the SL in Vancouver is nicer but I like our podium and heritage elements, and the Trump, well, it is a bit gaudy but adds some interest to our skyline. I am from Vancouver originally, and I do think the architecture is a bit better there, but not remarkably - and they have a vastly better waterfront to work with, not to mention prices (don't get me started on ours - oh I seem to remember your frustration outweighs mine, though!).

So, again, where are the places that are doing it right? What are the buildings doing things right that we aren't?

 

[CanadianNational]

agoraflaneur:

Thanks for that. But -
Oh, that'd be a big list.
I'm amazed at how much variety, pleasure and innovation the world offers in architecture - things that are always changing. Wonderful things are always being offered anew. So I don't like seeing only one kind of building being pushed as acceptable for Toronto, or, specifically, one acceptable opinion for other members here on this forum. That got my back up.

I've written a lot about what I do and don't like - over time, on this forum. I do love it, and enjoy contributing visual stuff as well. I'll have to let that stand as a better contribution than another wordy post, right now.

Off the top of my head, I'd say I generally look to Europe. Not starchitecture, but a lot of quieter names. When I have more time I'll have to post some stuff.

 

[agoraflaneur]

CN et al.

Of course I agree that there should not be a single vernacular accepted for Toronto, though that does seem to be the case all too often.

I suppose that I just tire of hearing the inevitable sigh from multiple quarters whenever something is proposed, without the addition of new ideas (which you can't be accused of at all, a least in my limited experience on this forum).

Subtle neo-modernism isn't a bad thing in my view. I prefer it to many of the gaudy pieces that many fawn over. What I don't like is a lack of attention to street life, sustainability, and livability - nor do I enjoy the banality of its constant iteration.

I do long for some more interesting projects, though, and at the prices being charged for this project I do believe more something else could be achieved. Being a relative newcomer to the architectural world - while realizing financial limitation - I simply do not know what would work better for Toronto at this juncture.

I look forward to the contribution of anyone on this forum to that debate, including lovers of our boxy lines.

 

[ProjectEnd]

I tried constructive criticism, but certain pretentious members just wave it off as "lol u dnt kno arkitecshure". I had quite the writeup of what i specifically didn't like about some recent aA buildings (and in the same post talked about the aA buildings I absolutely love), but if people aren't going to have an open mind, what's the point?

Well one might derisively remark that you had all the taste of someone who would spit on a statue of Nathan Phillips because he 'caused all them ugly concrete buildings.' Oh wait.

 

[Bayer]

10 years ago, I bought a 1,200 sq. ft. apartment at the Lexington for $100,000 less than their asking price for a 377 sq. ft. studio.

 

[CITY_LOVER]

Hey Bayer,

Somehow I thought you lived in Lumiere!? Did you ever purchase a unit in that building?

I wonder why this project is not taller - is there a constraint of some sort that makes it 32 storeys? (Just curious.)

 

[Bayer]

Somehow I thought you lived in Lumiere!? Did you ever purchase a unit in that building?

No, I rent on a high floor at ROCP I now. I have to look down to see Lumière...

This new project looks great in my humble opinion, but again I am concerned about these tiny apartments.

 

[Red October]

Well one might derisively remark that you had all the taste of someone who would spit on a statue of Nathan Phillips because he 'caused all them ugly concrete buildings.' Oh wait.

I like heritage, and I like my city. Therefore, I hate what Nathan Phillips did.

You, meanwhile, resort to personal attacks when you can't think of anything to come back with.

You are the closed-minded one here, not me.

 

[Urban Shocker]

Are we talking about the easy-sell curves of Market Wharf's balconies, or Ãce's everything? Just checking!

I believe we're talking about what an "easy sell" something is ( everything from a condo tower design to a page design in a newspaper ... ) in general if "sexy curves" are a prominent feature. Several years ago I almost caused a riot in The Met condo thread by referring to the "cheap trick" easy sell of "sexy curves" and how buyers would stampede like "lemmings" to anything that wasn't rectilinear.

 

[investican]

Cresford purchased the building (984 bay) for 10.75 mil -- looks like site will include all three properties

Pics taken Nov 5, 2011

The building south of the Bistro 990 is for sale. Does anyone know the fate of the Bistro property?

 

[androiduk]

Could they be thinking of putting up 2 towers here?

 

[ThomasJ]

Could they be thinking of putting up 2 towers here?

Cresford's cost basis for this site is now $36,000,000. They have approvals for 144,000 sf on 1000 Bay plus another 50,000 sf as of right on the two new properties - that's a cost basis of $185/sf buildable for those of you keeping track at home.

I've said it before - there's no way this isn't going for another rezoning. Not two towers though, just a larger floor plate on the one. The original approval called for a ridiculously small tower floor plate of 3,850 sf (did I say ridiculously small?). They'll likely aim to double this now. I suspect they may even be able to keep a portion of the heritage Bistro building as well if they want to make the effort.

 

[Automation Gallery]

This was posted 14 hours ago on urbandreamer's Twitter feed:

(Future) 1000 Bay St condo buyers, did you know a future condo project is likely coming next door--aka at 984 Bay St?
http://www.metcomrealty.com/pdfs/Bay_Street_984_Sale_July_29_-2010.pdf

On further thought, urbandreamer must have meant that 984 Bay has probably been sold, and is likely to be the site of another condo tower next door.

Well this must be for the other one at 984 Bay

984 BAY ST
OPA / Rezoning 11 318491 STE 27 OZ Ward 27
- Tor & E.York Nov 30, 2011 --- --- --- Hynes, Michael
416-397-1761
Rezoning to permit the redevelopment of the lands for the purposes of a new mixed use building., Thirty-two stories in height comlpete with ground floor retail, Four hundred and seventy eight dwelling units and 192 parking spaces located in a below grade parking facility.

 

[Mongo]

Okay, 478 units @ 500 sf each (guesstimated average area) equals 239,000 sf, with the common areas would be a total of maybe 280,000 sf, and according to ThomasJ they are approved for 194,000 sf right now. So what is the chance that the City would grant a ~50% increase in gross floor area?