SashaLemon
Active Member
Love the design. Really a throw-back.
Better then all the boring glass ones!
Better then all the boring glass ones!
- Thread starter cabeman
- Start date
adHominem
Senior Member
Bold statement for a boom that's included Design Haus, or Orca, or Social, or...
Northern Light
Superstar
Bold....brash...........and.....difficult to fathom. Personal taste will vary, but I think, broadly, this one has been well received. In any event, you outline but three of the many, many buildings that look far worse.
Northern Light
Superstar
It's the holidays............so I won't rag on UT's chief Toronto Presentation Board Agenda Item poster, @DSC for being pokey on this one..... LOL
But the agenda for the January 6th, 2023 meeting is up and this building is up for designation.
But the agenda for the January 6th, 2023 meeting is up and this building is up for designation.
Last edited:
neuhaus
Senior Member
Definitely looks like a Wallman-designed building with the characteristic brick pattern motif on the facade.
It has a 70s or 80s apartment block look to it — the form, the recessed balconies and the muted brown and beige colour palate. Not sure if I like it but I don’t really hate it either. I’d guess it’s a decent background building. I think the brick shouldn’t match so closely with the heritage building, it makes it look really bland and doesn’t do the heritage building much justice by trying to blend together.
I would love to see the gas station being developed with this site and create a taller, more prominent building that complements the buildings around it. At 28 storeys it looks to be swallowed up by the much taller newer buildings nearby. Adding 10 more storeys would be welcomed here without conforming too much of the relentless 50-storey tabletop look of the entertainment district to the east.
It has a 70s or 80s apartment block look to it — the form, the recessed balconies and the muted brown and beige colour palate. Not sure if I like it but I don’t really hate it either. I’d guess it’s a decent background building. I think the brick shouldn’t match so closely with the heritage building, it makes it look really bland and doesn’t do the heritage building much justice by trying to blend together.
I would love to see the gas station being developed with this site and create a taller, more prominent building that complements the buildings around it. At 28 storeys it looks to be swallowed up by the much taller newer buildings nearby. Adding 10 more storeys would be welcomed here without conforming too much of the relentless 50-storey tabletop look of the entertainment district to the east.
Northern Light
Superstar
Not sure what's up w/this one............it's sat quietly for well over a year now......
AIC still says 'Under Review' ; No sign of it at OLT that I can discern. But I know the proponent's lawyers are talking to the City about it. (currently)
AIC still says 'Under Review' ; No sign of it at OLT that I can discern. But I know the proponent's lawyers are talking to the City about it. (currently)
Application Details
www.toronto.ca
Resubmitted with the following changes:
- Storeys increased from 28 to 30
- Height increased from 99.18 to 100.76m
- Total residential units increased from 521 to 550
- Total vehicular parking decreased from 145 to 74
- Office component removed
Context:
Attachments
AnnetteMeetsJane
Active Member
Seems low given the buildings to the immediate south and east…
ProjectEnd
Superstar
DavidCapizzano
Senior Member
Ugh
Northern Light
Superstar
Agreed @DavidCapizzano
This was not a positive change.
****
Edit to add:
I'm thinking that Heritage here is missing some key thoughts about its file.
I completely get you don't want the new to overwhelm the old; and also that you want one to be able to be distinguished from the other. Fine, as far as that goes.
But, I think the idea that deferring to the heritage requires contrast in colour or material is wrong. That may be the right choice, sometimes, but it should not be automatic.
It also strikes me that there is a need to recognize that not all heritage will or should 'pop'. That some things are best retained as background material that help stitch together a cohesive streetscape/vibe. Not every facade/building is a "Look Here" attention seeker.
In that same vein, one should be mindful that high contrast is attention seeking, and in this case, I think draws attention away from the heritage, to both its detriment and that of the proposed new build.
This was not a positive change.
****
Edit to add:
I'm thinking that Heritage here is missing some key thoughts about its file.
I completely get you don't want the new to overwhelm the old; and also that you want one to be able to be distinguished from the other. Fine, as far as that goes.
But, I think the idea that deferring to the heritage requires contrast in colour or material is wrong. That may be the right choice, sometimes, but it should not be automatic.
It also strikes me that there is a need to recognize that not all heritage will or should 'pop'. That some things are best retained as background material that help stitch together a cohesive streetscape/vibe. Not every facade/building is a "Look Here" attention seeker.
In that same vein, one should be mindful that high contrast is attention seeking, and in this case, I think draws attention away from the heritage, to both its detriment and that of the proposed new build.
Last edited:
UtakataNoAnnex
Senior Member
You forgot to capture one of Trump's face currently...
70Challenger
Active Member
Wtf? Why the design downgrade?
ProjectEnd
Superstar
See @DavidCapizzano's post above.
1Ć0
Active Member
As someone who's studied cartography, this map has got to be one of the worst maps I've ever seen