[Armour]

Wow its going to look great ! Its about time a developer creates a building that looks jagged like the Scotia Tower! Too many blue green box looking structures in the city.

I'd still like to see some buildings without flat roofs. Some tapered crowns/angled/rounded roofs would be nice to break from the monotony.

 

[Automation Gallery]

APlease don't let this get watered down.

Its up to the city now

 

[salsa]

Some images from last night's consultation:

I think of the Rockefeller Centre when I see your last pic, based on the sides of the building.

 

[Armour]

I think of the Rockefeller Centre when I see your last pic, based on the sides of the building.


View attachment 65605

Very similar. I hope those setbacks will be illuminated when all is said and done.

 

[Armour]

How will the east side of the tower look? Will it mirror the west side, or will it be a flat wall?

Who will maintain the pleached trees in the plaza?

Since this is a rental building, I would assume this can start construction more quickly than usual. Any idea when we can expect excavation to begin?

 

[67Cup]

The applicants dealt with the shadowing directly, showing how the building's form was generated by keeping the shadow within the existing Four Seasons shadow for all but an hour or two during the equinoxes. Apparently the City's greatest concern is actually the relocation (and loss of one) of the heritage houses on Scollard.

Very interesting... But it does also mean that this building itself must be within the shadow of Four Seasons, a very large percentage of the time. The prospective tenants had better not be sun worshippers!

 

[G.L.17]

Design Review Panel at 11:35am on Tues March 10th, committee room 2 @ City Hall.

 

[stjames2queenwest]

lots happening on march 10th huh? thanks GL

 

[interchange42]

This building has just made its first appearance at the Design Review Panel, and it received a unanimous vote to refine, none to redesign. We are preparing a front page report with the details for later!

42

 

[maestro]

That's the problem with DRPs. They elevate the minimum but, also mess around with stuff that doesn't need their input.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

That's the problem with DRPs. They elevate the minimum but, also mess around with stuff that doesn't need their input.

There is a certain *ick* factor when you have said group critiquing the work of their "superior". Oh well, it's all advisory anyways.

AoD

 

[modernizt]

I think a lot of you misunderstand the culture of architectural critique. It doesn't matter how rich or famous you become, having your peers evaluate your work is very valuable. Nobody is holding a gun to your head. I have defied the inputs of my critics numerous times throughout architecture school, and often the same individual who challenged me on an idea ended up satisfied with the resolution I came to on my own terms or going against their advice. Nothing wrong with that so long as you have good reasons for doing it.

 

[maestro]

This isn't a learning environment. These are opinionated veterans set in their way. One only needs towards Vancouver which has had DRP many years before us. I do hope I'm wrong.

 

[interchange42]

The panelists don't deign to teach architecture to the proponent: that's not the purpose of the reviews. It's about the development benefitting from the collective experience.

I have seen some architects bristle at some of the comments given at DRP hearings, but that has been exception. The rule has been that the meetings are quite collegial (without being backslapping), and that comments are given to be helpful in producing a superior design. Not every panel member agrees on what constitutes an improvement, however, so some comments conflict with others, and it is left to the proponents as to which comments to take on board, and which ones to agree to disagree on. When the entire body of the DRP agrees on something, however, you better be willing to consider the input.

From what I have seen, the DRP can occasionally react too conservatively for my taste when faced with some bold moves, but generally the panel gets it, and the great majority of projects benefit from its scrutiny.

42

 

[UrbanAffair]

Is "refine" really that bad? So they made suggestions. Collaboration is always a almost always a good thing in my opinion. If the architect doesn't agree, they don't have to change their design, do they?
I always found it odd that good architects are often treated like gods. I happen to like a few in Toronto that I consider great, Teeple, HP, and Aa among them. I'm not trying to offend here, (and I am often enamored too, don't get me wrong) but I think some protest a bit too much at any criticism of "their god".