I think it's an elegant building. I especially like the way it is stepped. But I wonder which elevation is being shown, north or south? I also wonder who the architect is.
(Not given to caring whether or not it eclipses FCP).
 
I have one principal concern with highrise development in the city: Right now new highrises are almost entirely residential. What's more, we are filling our southern CBD with residential buildings. This seems shortsighted. In Yorkville/Bloor-Yonge, not a single highrise (correct me if I'm wrong here) is commercial. I know it's all about demand, but it still concerns me.
 
I have one principal concern with highrise development in the city: Right now new highrises are almost entirely residential. What's more, we are filling our southern CBD with residential buildings. This seems shortsighted. In Yorkville/Bloor-Yonge, not a single highrise (correct me if I'm wrong here) is commercial. I know it's all about demand, but it still concerns me.

Given its proximity to Union, I think the focus on adding office space in Southcore makes more sense. Yonge and Bloor is a good location for office space, but a super-premium residential area, whereas Southcore is kind of the opposite.
 
Judging by the preliminary render on SSP, this design looks really banal to me. If indeed this project is being financed and/or directed by Holt Renfrew, I would expect it to be something more striking and/or dramatic. Holt Renfrew is about fashion, glamour, and setting ones self apart from the crowd via aesthetics, not one-size-fits-all utilitarian conformity.

This image looks like a Sarah plain-and-tall to me. Unsexy and forgettable. I hope the actual design will be more exciting.
 
When I first saw the rendering from SSP it made me think of the Sears tower in Chicago. So I compared the drawings of both from SSP and I no longer think this tower is too tall....

83.jpg
 
When I first saw the rendering from SSP it made me think of the Sears tower in Chicago. So I compared the drawings of both from SSP and I no longer think this tower is too tall....

83.jpg

Dang I wAnt our own sears tower in toronto. A huge business tower NOT A RESIDENTAIL TOWER. otherwise im happy holts is getting a building.
 
Many people have made the point that skyscrapers don't necessarily make a good urban neighbourhood, and then proceed to speak ill of the prospect of this skyscraper without giving reasons. I agree that tallness alone doesn't improve a neighbourhood, but can someone explain why tallness subtracts from a neighbourhood? Like the new Four Seasons building in Yorkville, for instance; how/why has its conspicuous height hurt the area? Apart from shade, I can't think of any negative effect such buildings have that would make people dread this development (though I can think of many benefits). Even if it were proposed for the centre of a low-rise neighbourhood, why is a tall building like this objectionable?

As for the design, ugh. I hope it changes throughout the design process. I'm so sick of the ubiquitous perfunctory glass look.
 
I'm glad we're getting another tower, I just wish it didn't look so ordinary. Can we get a little bit of originality and maybe some drama, once in a while. (shape or colour) So far, from what I can see, this is just another bland box.
 

Morguard looks to be the present owner of Holt Renfrew Centre, along with 60 Bloor West, 77 Bloor West, the Colonnade and a few other odds and sods downtown. their bread and butter is high rise rentals, many of them in Thorncliffe Parkway area and beyond....

http://www.morguard.com/mil/leasing.cfm?fuseaction=property.centreProfile&property_PK=704

here's a cover story about them in "Canadian Apartment Magazine", design porn it is not....

http://www.morguard.com/admin/contentEngine/contentImages/File/09392_Morguard_CAM_lowres.pdf

overall a very uninspired and possibly alarming state of affairs, if they are the developer.
 
Can someone explain why tallness subtracts from a neighbourhood? Even if it were proposed for the centre of a low-rise neighbourhood, why is a tall building like this objectionable?

Interesting question.

One impact is visual - but real. Shadow impacts can affect gardens and parks. Tall towers can also take away privacy: tower units can peer into back-yards and windows. Visually, from street level, where there was once sky, there will now be a large object, looming like a monolith. This might not be a big deal in the downtown core, where there are plenty of buildings all around. But outside the core - even a few blocks over, in areas like College or U of T - a gigantic tower alone in the sky would become visually imposing, dominating the scene - it can be an incredible distraction. What's more, it changes the character of the neighbourhood. If residents valued their area because trees, brick and sky prevailed, the arrival of glass and concrete is a jarring transition.

(Already, I can hear people saying "It's a city, get used to it!" But remember that cities combine all kinds of different neighbourhoods, with all kinds of different feels. And yes, cities change and evolve. But it's best if that happens gradually, not violently. Imagine what walking through Kensington would feel like if they'd built First Canadian Place across the road, on the north side of College, looming over the whole affair.)

Then there are the more practical effects. Big buildings house lots of people. They create foot traffic, vehicular traffic, transit traffic. This is fine and dandy where the city is built to support it. (Like Yonge and Bloor.) But when you built big buildings in suburban areas, you end up with a situation like Sheppard, where subway-driven mega-developments butt up against ranch-style housing cul-de-sacs, and headaches ensue. Since there's little mixed-use development in the area, you end up with huge influxes and outfluxes of people at peak times, and infrastructure that's underused at other hours.

In today's condo market, tall towers are built with tiny units that can't house families; the result is a lot of investment units and transient tenants. So they're unlikely to integrate fully with the local community.

And finally, there's the fact that development begets development. There's no such thing as just one tall tower: It becomes a precedent that developers can use both with the city and at the OMB. This has an effect on land values. Up on Sheppard, these towers were very literally going up in homeowners' backyards, leading to trench warfare between community groups and developers a few years back.

None of this is a screed against tall towers; I like 'em too. (Though I'm really concerned with the types of units we're building in them.) But this is why planners have learned to avoid putting tall towers in non-tall neighbourhoods: They can drastically alter the quality of a neighbourhood visually, economically, and practically.
 
Judging by the preliminary render on SSP, this design looks really banal to me. If indeed this project is being financed and/or directed by Holt Renfrew, I would expect it to be something more striking and/or dramatic. Holt Renfrew is about fashion, glamour, and setting ones self apart from the crowd via aesthetics, not one-size-fits-all utilitarian conformity.

This image looks like a Sarah plain-and-tall to me. Unsexy and forgettable. I hope the actual design will be more exciting.

I'm not trying to make this personal but this has started to bug me so much that I have to say something...
I feel like we've created another "first" competition here on UT. Along with claiming construction is going "soooo slow :(", "it looks nothing like the render", etc., it seems we have a new rush to see who can first call a building "banal". And seriously, you don't even know what it looks like? We have a line drawing and an artistic rendering from an enthusiast (nothing official). Lets all take a collective deep breath and wait a little bit before we turn our noses up at whatever they eventually release.
 
This isnt even a rendering people, its a drawing made by a third party unrelated to the project that is entirely based on the elevation sketch...
 

Back
Top