i am having a feeling those are not waves. they are more likely fins installe to make them look like waves.
 
ushahid said:
i am having a feeling those are not waves. they are more likely fins installe to make them look like waves.
Click to expand...
I really really REALLY hope they're waves. Either way it's nice to see more and more higher quality projects flowing in. Really looking forward to some updated renders for this project
 
More documents submitted in Jun and Oct to get zoning taken care off. No pretty pictures supplied (but if someone wants to play with the elevations, go for it)! I'm upping the height of the building because, although the roof is still at 248.5 metres, there's a parapet wall of approximately 1.5 metres in height around it, so, you guessed it 250 metres!

(And just a reminder, it is two conjoined straight up-and-down boxes, with no fancy bulbous sections as per the rendering in the database file, which we will replace as soon as we have something good.)

42
 
From the June 24th, 2021 Arch. Plans:

1636123052687.png


1636123074966.png
 
1E8E65C9-43E6-467E-A9F0-CF5B6EE987F0.jpeg


Meh. Close Bellair to vehicular traffic and now we’re talking. This is whatever.
F3EE92DC-1BD2-4233-AEDB-71E35C9291DB.jpeg


This application is for 2 relatively narrow but very tall towers and was headed for an LPAT hearing for resolution due to opposition put forward by City Planning, GYRA, ABCRA, and other local stakeholders, however, there was a late breakthrough.

As a result, we are very pleased to report that City Council has approved the developer’s application which included an expansion of the Yorkville Village Park from Bellair St. to Bay St. The building known as 1240 Bay St., also affectionately known as the TTC building because of its 2 subway entrances currently on that land, will be become part of this new development land assembly and will eventually be torn down to make way for the park expansion. The number and location of subway entrances will be a TTC decision. The developer of 80-82 Bloor will be paying for all costs for the building, its demolition, and the cost of park expansion, which will become City property.
 
I don't understand this downgrade. I wana sit down with the people that rejected the previous design and understand their logic.
 
Khaloody said:
I don't understand this downgrade. I wana sit down with the people that rejected the previous design and understand their logic.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure what you mean by downgrade here. As this seems to be the 3rd crack at this design wise and likely the most plausible to be built.

...either way, this is still big chunk of a development. So that hasn't really changed.
 
ProjectEnd said:
Did you really think the previous GPA version was going to happen?
Click to expand...

You do ask a similar question in many threads; I know your inside-baseball cynicism doesn't allow for it, PE, but most people, imagine that when someone/a company publicly puts out 'If given a chance, we'll do this' they actually imagine it may be true.

LOL

At the very least, they hope it's true; unless it's a Kirkor design, in which case people hope they're lying........... LOL
 
Northern Light said:
You do ask a similar question in many threads; I know your inside-baseball cynicism doesn't allow for it, PE, but most people, imagine that when someone/a company publicly puts out 'If given a chance, we'll do this' they actually imagine it may be true.

LOL

At the very least, they hope it's true; unless it's a Kirkor design, in which case people hope they're lying........... LOL
Click to expand...
Perhaps I'm irreparably jaded, but when those same folks see a concept car, do they believe that's what they'll be able to buy in two years?
 
ProjectEnd said:
Perhaps I'm irreparably jaded, but when those same folks see a concept car, do they believe that's what they'll be able to buy in two years?
Click to expand...
Everybody understands the idea of a concept car and few, if any, make the mistake that they might be able to drive around in one in a couple of years. The pattern in Toronto, for the most part, is to promote a flashy design, then value engineer it to death. Nobu is a good example among many. I've photographed buildings in 55 countries and in over 300 cities.There are beautiful designs that get built in many of those cities and they actually look like the original render. The issue in Toronto is that there are a large group of condo developers who are simply maximizing profits at the expense of quality. Obviously, making money is the whole point and value engineering happens everywhere, but the overall track record here is pretty dismal. Being jaded is simply the result of being disappointed too many times. In my opinion, if a condo developer hires HPA or, to a lesser extent, Aa, we know we will probably be getting a quality design. Commercial buildings here are a different story. Some recent builds and under-construction projects are really terrific. The sad part is that in many cases, non-Toronto architects were hired as the lead designers. Is that simply name branding? Or is it a sign of a deeper issue?
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top