greenleaf said:
This is embarrassing for the the architect, the developer, and city planning whose policies put us in this situation. redo, start over, this is dumb. Ugh.
Click to expand...
The developer is certainly proud, they have no shame in this. Did you see what they did on the opposite side of the street to Yonge-Eglinton Centre, and what their full plans were for it? I'll admit the interior of said centre is nice, but the exterior is a complete disaster, which may or may not be the case with this as well.
 
UtakataNoAnnex said:
That would be cute if it wasn't so obviously disingenuous of them to "leave" that corner in there like that. /sigh
Click to expand...

It reminds me of the lonely Old City Hall clock tower in one of the earlier Eatons Centre proposals.

 
Last edited:
Final Report, Approval Recommended, to the next meeting of TEYCC:


Note: Height reduction to 34s, @interchange42

Revision List:

1655518368795.png


S.37 benefits:

1655518309503.png
 
I'm never been this pissed on any development. This was where I would hang out always growing up. If the architecture was remotely interesting I wouldn't be having this reaction. Not even an homage to the heritage building I can't believe it.
 
abovegrade said:
I'm never been this pissed on any development. This was where I would hang out always growing up. If the architecture was remotely interesting I wouldn't be having this reaction. Not even an homage to the heritage building I can't believe it.
Click to expand...
There is an homage, but it's totally insulting: they're proposing to keep a narrow band of old windows along the north edge of the podium. Take a look at the renderings in the database file again!

42
 
This one has a new submission...........but sadly the same architect.........

@Paclo

www.toronto.ca

Application Details

www.toronto.ca www.toronto.ca

Diaglog are clearly aspiring to be more like aA ; they've removed all colour from the renders. (psst, it doesn't help)

1719485573920.png


(For Paclo, the 2 below are close to full size, the one above is at 40%)

1719485492388.png


1719485524505.png


1719485660590.png

1719485690230.png

1719485711503.png

1719485742386.png

1719485770758.png



Site Plan:

1719485820862.png


@HousingNowTO in exchange for getting the office replacement waived they are offering:

1,384 square metres of affordable housing gross floor area across the two sites. (equal to 20% of the m2 of the office space)
 
Yeah...clearly they're not getting it. This thing is going to be dreck no matter how many times it's revised at this point.
 
Northern Light said:
This one has a new submission........... @HousingNowTO in exchange for getting the office replacement waived they are offering:

1,384 square metres of affordable housing gross floor area across the two sites. (equal to 20% of the m2 of the office space)
Click to expand...
Will need to dig into those details a little more, thanks!

Roughly 20-22 units depending on unit-size and location. Number of years = TBD.

Assuming podium allocations for the Affordable Units.
 
Not all high rise condos are going to be architectural gems. A builder would not build unless there is a market for it. Building up is the only responsible way to achieve more housing which Toronto desperately needs for all demographics. To expand suburbia is just not economical or environmentally friendly. Is this a perfect design? No, but for some it wouldn't matter as there is a "not in my backyard" sentiment. This may not be Affordable housing for many, but for many it would be or the owner would not build it.
 
SaltnPepper said:
Not all high rise condos are going to be architectural gems. A builder would not build unless there is a market for it. Building up is the only responsible way to achieve more housing which Toronto desperately needs for all demographics. To expand suburbia is just not economical or environmentally friendly. Is this a perfect design? No, but for some it wouldn't matter as there is a "not in my backyard" sentiment. This may not be Affordable housing for many, but for many it would be or the owner would not build it.
Click to expand...
Regarding densification and not expanding sprawl, UrbanToronto types are the choir that you're preaching to, so 'Amen!' It's the architectural question that's generally up for debate though here, so even if we're not getting a masterwork (I agree, there's just not enough money in most budgets to make sure they're all standouts), we still don't want dreck...

...and what we want to see at minimum is a cohesive design, where the elements of the tower are still present in the podium, even if being reinterpreted, or vice versa. In the images above, that does not appear to be the case; the rounded elements of the podium levels appear to have come from a suburban office park from 30 years ago, whereas the tower seems to emphasize the rectilinear. Architectural firms REALLY COULD try to make the building look like it is all of one design, instead of whatever parts they grabbed from Home Depot.

42
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top