H
Hydrogen
Guest
I wonder how many said planning staff members go to the barber and always ask for "a little off the top"?
- Thread starter Northern Light
- Start date
I wonder how many said planning staff members go to the barber and always ask for "a little off the top"?
unimaginative2
Senior Member
If they had a restaurant with a patio in the park, it could be really successful and attractive.
Big Daddy
Senior Member
I disagree, the height issue IS the issue. I mean 8 floors?? - What if they had asked for 68 floors, cut them back to 60? And the reason is……..? This makes no sense. Neither does the argument about it hiding the TIFF. No one seems concerned that you can’t see city hall anymore. If they were so concerned about the TIFF why did they knock it down in height? It makes no sense. I suppose they cut back the TIFF never thinking there would ever be another building in front of or beside it. Good planning. Must be the same guys who thought we should spend a $ billion on a subway line on Sheppard Ave. Well if developers have learned anything, go in asking for the moon because you will be cut back, for whatever reason of the day (makes the planners look like they are working hard) Honestly, the site is about as downtown as your going to get. Where should we put tall buildings?
yyzer
Senior Member
the whole idea of a 'tapered' skyline seems a bit stupid to me...When was this decision made? I don't think that other cities such as NY, Chicago, or Shanghai for that matter, would require an arbitrary taper from some designated highpoint.
Ridiculous, really..
Why can't we have a multi-nodal downtown, with several 'highpoints' scattered throughout? Who appointed the CN Tower as ground zero for the future skyline, for generations to come? It's really arbitrary, and really not necessary. The skyline is not a freaking Christmas tree. Let it grow as it will.
Ridiculous, really..
Why can't we have a multi-nodal downtown, with several 'highpoints' scattered throughout? Who appointed the CN Tower as ground zero for the future skyline, for generations to come? It's really arbitrary, and really not necessary. The skyline is not a freaking Christmas tree. Let it grow as it will.
ProjectEnd
Superstar
/\ Excellent post. You make several good points there yyzer.
If the render is any evidence, all that that skyline-tapering nonsense will contribute to is a collection of stubby, semi-impressive buildings. I'm not blindly advocating height because I think there is a lot wrong with the design of the "new" 300 FTW; fortunately, theres much to like as well. While the tower doesn't do the skyline any favors in terms of a focal point, it still provides excellent 'filler.' By that I mean it connects void between the mass the new areas of development - i.e. Fort York and Cityplace - and that of the financial district.
My biggest problem with the "new" 300 FTW is that it looks far too much like they just took 'a piece off the top' while simultaneously forgetting what that may do to the overall composition. Had the balconies tapered off a few floors before the roof (a la render 1), it could still have captured the vertically of the first model without overtly betraying its height decrease. Sadly, they shuffled the massing around, drew a new park and neglected to adequately address the visual shortcomings of the new centerpiece, the tower itself. Modernism is beautiful in its simplicity and it's one of the reasons why I can see myself liking a slightly modified version of 300 FTW's current proposal. That said, what we are currently being presented with has all the grace of a polished Teesdale-Transplant.
If the render is any evidence, all that that skyline-tapering nonsense will contribute to is a collection of stubby, semi-impressive buildings. I'm not blindly advocating height because I think there is a lot wrong with the design of the "new" 300 FTW; fortunately, theres much to like as well. While the tower doesn't do the skyline any favors in terms of a focal point, it still provides excellent 'filler.' By that I mean it connects void between the mass the new areas of development - i.e. Fort York and Cityplace - and that of the financial district.
My biggest problem with the "new" 300 FTW is that it looks far too much like they just took 'a piece off the top' while simultaneously forgetting what that may do to the overall composition. Had the balconies tapered off a few floors before the roof (a la render 1), it could still have captured the vertically of the first model without overtly betraying its height decrease. Sadly, they shuffled the massing around, drew a new park and neglected to adequately address the visual shortcomings of the new centerpiece, the tower itself. Modernism is beautiful in its simplicity and it's one of the reasons why I can see myself liking a slightly modified version of 300 FTW's current proposal. That said, what we are currently being presented with has all the grace of a polished Teesdale-Transplant.
marcus_a_j
Senior Member
I actually prefer the second rendition, height reduction aside. If it were to have another name, I would call it Simcoe Place Residences (which is what I think it looks like a bit). I like how the west side is not blue glass, but a nice change to a darker material. The crown on the first rendition looked silly to me.
I agree with all the sentiments stated about the height reduction being silly. If the planning staff is concerned about the 'tapering' of the skyline out from the financial core, then what about the views from the east and west? The skyline goes up and down like a yo-yo. Once Aura and 1 Bloor (and other Yorkville area projects) get built there will be lots of fluctuations in building heights. The various peaks in the skyline will make it look a lot more bolder.
I agree with all the sentiments stated about the height reduction being silly. If the planning staff is concerned about the 'tapering' of the skyline out from the financial core, then what about the views from the east and west? The skyline goes up and down like a yo-yo. Once Aura and 1 Bloor (and other Yorkville area projects) get built there will be lots of fluctuations in building heights. The various peaks in the skyline will make it look a lot more bolder.
adma
Superstar
How about a tapired skyline?
Mike in TO
Senior Member
How is the developer cheapening the proposal?
The city requested the change, Tridel would have likely been in a position fro greater profits with the additional height. The way word "cheapening" is tossed around here in almost every development thread is ridiculous.
I prefer the slimmer profile of the first proposal, but the site orientation on the second certainly makes more sense. Tridel typically works with their municipal partners to reach compromise solutions rather then digging in their heals and taking their projects to the OMB - so we are most likely to see the city get their way on this particular site. I really don't understand the height issue given the site location - if there was any issue that the city may have had I would have thought it would have been related to employment lands.
Jayomatic
Active Member
Are you blind? I'm not talking about the height at all, but was pointing out how the first version had a bit of steelwork at the top to add some visual interest. A nice steel frame which reminds me of the recent addition Richard Rogers did for his son's london apartment.
Mike in TO
Senior Member
Jayomatic,
These are preliminary designs and I really can't see how you've determined the construction cost per square foot of each design based on the renderings. Construction budget's for condos are usually based on floor space and at this preliminary stage Tridel would not likely be altering those numbers significantly, therefore design 1 and design 2 are likely approximately the same cost psf. I'm not "blind", but I'm involved in the condo industry and know a thing or two about planning and construction... The way the word "cheapening" is always used on UT is seldom based on reality.
These are preliminary designs and I really can't see how you've determined the construction cost per square foot of each design based on the renderings. Construction budget's for condos are usually based on floor space and at this preliminary stage Tridel would not likely be altering those numbers significantly, therefore design 1 and design 2 are likely approximately the same cost psf. I'm not "blind", but I'm involved in the condo industry and know a thing or two about planning and construction... The way the word "cheapening" is always used on UT is seldom based on reality.
Jayomatic
Active Member
If thats the case, its just disappointing, thats all. I just wish some developers would put a little more money and effort into the details.
Mike in TO
Senior Member
Overall the project still looks like a winner, but I agree with you that the previous proposal looked better (except for the park/tower orientation - the second proposal creates a better public space).
Also it really isn't about developers putting in more money, at the end of the day it is the consumer that pays for everything - so what you are asking for condo prices to continue to increase so that a additional funds can be dedicated to exterior materials and detailing (which we are generally seeing the past few years - prices have gone upwards and condo designs and material qualities have vastly increased compared to even a few years ago - consumers expect more for their additional investment).
This process may make for a more attractive city, but also leads to affordability issues and may exclude some from home ownership.... That said, at this location the prices that Tridel will be able to sell units for would certainly justify a much higher architectural and material investment then the units they sell in Mississauga or Scarborough.
Also it really isn't about developers putting in more money, at the end of the day it is the consumer that pays for everything - so what you are asking for condo prices to continue to increase so that a additional funds can be dedicated to exterior materials and detailing (which we are generally seeing the past few years - prices have gone upwards and condo designs and material qualities have vastly increased compared to even a few years ago - consumers expect more for their additional investment).
This process may make for a more attractive city, but also leads to affordability issues and may exclude some from home ownership.... That said, at this location the prices that Tridel will be able to sell units for would certainly justify a much higher architectural and material investment then the units they sell in Mississauga or Scarborough.
Mongo
Senior Member
I too saw that the roof element had been shortened. Given that the City is demanding a height reduction "to fit into the skyline", I am sure that the developer would much rather shrink the roof element before reducing the number of floors. In this case, unfortunately, both were necessary.
scarberiankhatru
Senior Member
Earlier in the thread I got jumped for voicing concern about the rapidly shrinking supply of good available employment land downtown and also about how this Tridel project is not on the most logical site for a condo as it's bordered by offices on three sides and a hydro station on the fourth...I feel so vindicated!
DaninToronto
Active Member
Maybe 10 years down the road we will be like Vancouver where we have no available land and the city asks themselves "why did we care so much about height, when now we have so much ugly cheap buildings going up that we are now stuck with, but hey at least they are shorter?"