YIMBY519 said:
The owners (Colonia Treuhand) take a very long term approach to their holdings. They own a ton of sites in Downtown East and rarely sell or develop.
Click to expand...
Same architects for both 675 and 689 but when 689 was presented to the city, the architects never stated that 675 would present to the city soon after and block off the east gap between the two 689 King st hotel towers.
 
city10 said:
Looks as if this new building will block off the gap between the two hotels to be built at 689 King st west leaving a cavern facing 705 king st west. Same architects for both projects. Not a good combo. More hodge podge. I wish Hines bought these two properties. They are developing 64-86 Bathurst on the same block. It would look soo much better if it was one developer instead of 3.
https://urbantoronto.ca/dat.../projects/689-king-street-west
Click to expand...
Incorrect.
 
Then it becomes an enclosed courtyard. "Incorrect" was in reference to the idea that fewer, larger, buildings somehow make for a better urban environment. That's almost universally not true.
 
ProjectEnd said:
Then it becomes an enclosed courtyard. "Incorrect" was in reference to the idea that fewer, larger, buildings somehow make for a better urban environment. That's almost universally not true.
Click to expand...
No where did I say fewer buildings. I was referring to having a more coherent design like what Hines is doing on Bathurst. These two projects on King are unattractive. Unfinished walls, promises of green walls that will never materialize or murals that may never make up for ugly concrete walls.
 
city10 said:
Looks as if this new building will block off the gap between the two hotels to be built at 689 King st west leaving a cavern facing 705 king st west. Same architects for both projects. Not a good combo. More hodge podge. I wish Hines bought these two properties. They are developing 64-86 Bathurst on the same block. It would look soo much better if it was one developer instead of 3.
https://urbantoronto.ca/dat.../projects/689-king-street-west
Click to expand...
Are you not saying fewer buildings here?

"Hodge podge" urbanism is better. There's a wealth of good academic work on this topic.
 
ProjectEnd said:
Are you not saying fewer buildings here?

"Hodge podge" urbanism is better. There's a wealth of good academic work on this topic.
Click to expand...
No it could still be 3 towers in total between the two but three towers that fit well on both the east and west sides of the properties. A blank concrete wall up against the Wheatsheaf property, which if protected as heritage, won't ever be developed any time soon, is a design failure. Similarly for the west side that encloses what was supposed to be an opening between two towers to allow some light through. The same architects on both projects and they went to the city with this rationale for the two tower concept at 689 King st. Anyway, from all the comments here, I do not see many fans of the design.
 
city10 said:
No it could still be 3 towers in total between the two but three towers that fit well on both the east and west sides of the properties. A blank concrete wall up against the Wheatsheaf property, which if protected as heritage, won't ever be developed any time soon, is a design failure. Similarly for the west side that encloses what was supposed to be an opening between two towers to allow some light through. The same architects on both projects and they went to the city with this rationale for the two tower concept at 689 King st. Anyway, from all the comments here, I do not see many fans of the design.
Click to expand...
It's not a design failure, it's both a legal and / or code failure. The remedy is to get an LDA over the bar and the adjacent property (discussed on the previous page) and to sprinkler the windows above. The practical outworking of those two things having not been pursued or secured is what's leading to this outcome. It's not a great looking proposal, but Sweeny or the present owners don't have anything to do with the resulting east façade.

Dermot's job is to secure the maximum density for both of his clients. That's it.
 
ProjectEnd said:
It's not a design failure, it's both a legal and / or code failure. The remedy is to get an LDA over the bar and the adjacent property (discussed on the previous page) and to sprinkler the windows above. The practical outworking of those two things having not been pursued or secured is what's leading to this outcome. It's not a great looking proposal, but Sweeny or the present owners don't have anything to do with the resulting east façade.

Dermot's job is to secure the maximum density for both of his clients. That's it.
Click to expand...
Who is Dermot?
 
ProjectEnd said:

Sweeny&Co Architects | Team

The team, led by Dermot Sweeny, John Gillanders and Caroline Richard, sees every project as a partnership with clients to create better buildings, interior spaces, and cities.
www.sweenyandco.com www.sweenyandco.com
Click to expand...
Well Dermot was not completely open with the city in not disclosing that the eastern gap between the two towers would be closed off by a design he already had in the works.
 
city10 said:
Well Dermot was not completely open with the city in not disclosing that the eastern gap between the two towers would be closed off by a design he already had in the works.
Click to expand...
What responsibility does he have to disclose that to anyone? I'm not just trying to be obtuse here, what's the obligation?
 
city10 said:
To be open and upfront with their plans.
Click to expand...
If you're hired by one developer for one site, you do not disclose anything about other sites you may also be hired to design until such time as that proposal is also ready to go, whether those sites are adjacent or nearby or whatever; it's the developer's prerogative to do that. The sites will be evaluated on their own merits anyway, no matter who has designed them, it does not matter that it is the same architect in this case.

42
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top