AlvinofDiaspar said:
It's going to be another franken-addition? I can't think of any other city in the world off the top of my head with this kind of typology as the default response to intensification.

AoD
Click to expand...

This ^^^

Let me add here; IF redevelopment of Trinity Ctr is to be considered, it should be looked at with the Eaton Ctr and the adjacent streets, considering a proper contextual approach to what would be best at this site.

Ideally, to me, everything west of the main Eaton Ctr that isn't heritage should come down and be re-thought.

Questions that could thoughtfully answered with a wholistic approach......

1) How do we create an animated Bay Street; intensifying the lands, while respecting City Hall/NPS and making sure the Galleria at TEC also gets some sun?

2) Can be better respect the heritage of Trinity Church and the adjacent public space?

3) Can we create a more usuable public park than the space adjacent to Trinity Church?

4) Can we extend TEC and its galleria to Bay St, without leaving the site without diminishing pedestrian convenience, 24/7?

5) Can we redevelop the entire Dundas side of TEC, shifting the existing tower to allow a properly animated retail edge to Dundas AND a usable mall extension (instead of dead space interrupted by an elevator core) as is the case today?

This just feels hodge-podgy to me.
 
Automation Gallery said:
I like the way that they are adding residential to these downtown dead zones:cool:
Click to expand...

One condo isn't going to change that - what will really help change it is opening Old City Hall as a multi-use complex and Eaton Centre not turning its back on James and Albert St.

mjl08 said:
Pleeeease no recladding.
Click to expand...

I am agnostic depends on what they intend to do. I am more concerned the form of the addition given the shape of the existing building,

AoD
 
The existing office building is approx. 35 meters in height , if the 60 stories to be added is similar to Massey 60s/207 meters we'll have approx a 240 meter structure
i expect that height at this location to be an issue with City Planning
 
I hate this.

Why does the City go to the damn mat for R-zones, but sees massive disruption in CRs as de rigueur? It's infuriating, really, since the embodied energy in a structure like BTS hasn't even come close to paying itself off, while the stick build townhouses in places like the area bound by Spadina, College, University and Queen remain sacrosanct?

This City sometimes...
 
Automation Gallery said:
I guess you don't know much about the area after office and retail hours
Click to expand...

If that's the case then I guess then that we should remove most of the financial district at the same time.
 
Edward Skira said:
If that's the case then I guess then that we should remove most of the financial district at the same time.
Click to expand...
Not get rid of. Put more residential in the mix.

INDX and Trump were good starts, though Trump doesn't actually have that many people physically living in it from my understanding. 88 Scott, Yonge+Rich, Massey Tower are all residential buildings sort of on the edge of the core (like this one) that will help give it more of a 24/7 vibrancy that it lacks.
 
20191024_133203.jpg
 
looking at the plan, HT indicators do not add up.
If it's ASL then the res. tower is only 80m over existing BTS?
Elevations are showing something entirely different.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top