I’m afraid I have to go with the thumbs down crew on this one. Partisans has positioned themselves in the past as severe critics of “developer” architecture, but it’s one thing to be a scold and to design (or over design) a hip restaurant and a sauna in Muskoka, another thing to have the chops to handle a major addition to a significant heritage building. The proposal is like a design from a precocious architecture student, so ham-handed and derivative in its proportions and fenestration, one only wishes that the owner had the budget to hire an architect that knows how to do a sympathetic modernist addition to a beaux-art building. Saying that no one will see it from the street is surely throwing in the towel at this point.
 
giphy.gif
 
I really like the Partisans work I've seen in real life (esp. Ravel), and their two tower proposals - but this time....erm, I think I have to side with thecharioteer on this one. The new addition does not look sympathetic, nor even respectful. The original building has a great, reserved sense of style that this addition utterly disregards. It hardly references it, plays off it nor enhances it. I think it's a misfire. It would be an affront if it were any more prominent.
I think it should go back to the drawing board - or even to a different architectural firm, sad to say.
 
thecharioteer said:
I’m afraid I have to go with the thumbs down crew on this one. Partisans has positioned themselves in the past as severe critics of “developer” architecture, but it’s one thing to be a scold and to design (or over design) a hip restaurant and a sauna in Muskoka, another thing to have the chops to handle a major addition to a significant heritage building. The proposal is like a design from a precocious architecture student, so ham-handed and derivative in its proportions and fenestration, one only wishes that the owner had the budget to hire an architect that knows how to do a sympathetic modernist addition to a beaux-art building. Saying that no one will see it from the street is surely throwing in the towel at this point.
Click to expand...

I agree it needs refinement and dosent respect the heritage structure, but does every new building need to be a contemporary in order to not be heavy handed and derivative? The most grubby (unsympathetic to their surroundings) designs Ive seen in the past 2 decades are all lazy modern designs ; Minto Bathurst, 365 Church, Zigg condos to name a few. The biggest eyesore additions Ive seen usually feature raw concrete columns and oppresive cantilevering; a bad modern design trend.
 
Last edited:
The grilled mechanical penthouse is terribly ugly. It’s naive to think that no one will see it with so many high-rise buildings downtown. That could have been a beautiful new spire inspired by the existing cupolas.
 
New renderings are updated in the database. The overall building storey count changed from 15 storeys to 21 storeys. The total height changed from 71.30m to 89.45m. Finally, the total unit count proposed changed from 67 units to 127 units.

Rendering is taken from the architectural plan via Rezoning submission.
 
Wondering if the infill units could preserve some of the exterior materiality on the retained structure, that would be a big sell

Screen Shot 2023-03-20 at 1.44.32 AM.png
 
I can get behind projects like this, these are great old buildings, but effectively class C/B office space at best, so it'd cost a ton to make this competitive with the many new office towners. Residential conversion will likely see the building receive a better treatment as well.

The negative being the loss of cheaper office space in the core, though, maybe that's what co-working spaces can provide now in more modern buildings.
 
innsertnamehere said:
Great piece.

I wonder how much City Planning is going to dig their heels in over office replacement policies with the growing pressure for conversions.
Click to expand...

Worth noting, in an earlier generation, this city and its planning department were early leaders in conversions.

The two buildings at Yonge/Wellesley (east side)

The two buildings in Leaside (south side of Overlea at Millwood)

The building at Davisville/Yonge (s/e corner)

The Imperial Oil building on St. Clair W as well.

It's not a foreign concept here, indeed, we were among the earliest places to do this at scale.

Planning should be open to this, in the right context.

ie. This is not about about permitting net loss of Class-A space; it's about allowing net loss of Class B or C space; and only for a period during which the market is demonstrably poor.

Gregg Lintern notes the office market was worse in the early 90s. He's not wrong; that's also the period during which the City allowed the last round of conversions however.

The City tightened up when the market recovered, because there was a shortage of office space in every category; which was the sensible thing to do in that time.

City planning can and should be adaptable to the circumstances of any given time.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top