Unless there's some sort of colour to it... how terribly boring.
 
Interesting, I walked past this block several weeks ago and thought it was ripe for a tall, slim tower, while renovating the heritage buildings on Yonge, and here we are!
 
AlvinofDiaspar said:
Can't help but think that would have worked better as a hotel - no need for even the perfunctory "cooking area".AoD
Click to expand...

ACTS is a long-term stay facility with fully serviced suites so while it's not quite a 'hotel' per se, it's not entirely a traditional apartment either.

Back to 771, I'm quite liking this. At +/-482sm / floor, it's small but Wallman has still made the floor plate work and while it's also pretty close to 2 Bloor East, it's no closer than RCMI is to Air Miles (10m).

greenleaf said:
This is boring crap entirely lacking in any sort of creativity or attempt to engage with the city except performing a purely capitalistic endeavour.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure what you'd like here greenleaf. Sure, it's a capitalistic endeavour, but what part of development (especially multi-unit residential) isn't? Should the building do backflips? Sprout trees? Sing a song? It's housing and as long as it's well-detailed (the rezoning set shows limited detail but things do look pretty good) and built to an appropriate standard (Menkes has a good track record here), what's not to like?
 
Appalling ... looks the tower is only proposed to be +/- 10.0 metre away from 2 Bloor East, I can't see how this is supportable from City Planning perspective and clear tower separation distance limits

I'm not sure what they are thinking by leaving 765 Yonge (Albert Britnell Building) out of the proposal, surely the City won't let this project orphan that parcel and insist that it be incorporated for a comprehensive redevelopment

Architecturally it is just another featureless glass tower, but clearly this was just a paper exercise that only serves to maximize the building footprint on the lot (effective 100% coverage minus laneway that they can't build on) ... I expected better from Menkes + Wallman
 
ProjectEnd said:
ACTS is a long-term stay facility with fully serviced suites so while it's not quite a 'hotel' per se, it's not entirely a traditional apartment either.

Back to 771, I'm quite liking this. At +/-482sm / floor, it's small but Wallman has still made the floor plate work and while it's also pretty close to 2 Bloor East, it's no closer than RCMI is to Air Miles (10m).



I'm not sure what you'd like here greenleaf. Sure, it's a capitalistic endeavour, but what part of development (especially multi-unit residential) isn't? Should the building do backflips? Sprout trees? Sing a song? It's housing and as long as it's well-detailed (the rezoning set shows limited detail but things do look pretty good) and built to an appropriate standard (Menkes has a good track record here), what's not to like?
Click to expand...

This is architecture as a purely perfunctory exercise. There is zero personality to this building. Okay, I suppose the east wall "goes wild" with a slight jut out on the tower.

This building is the Dockers khaki pants paired with Gap navy blue polo shirt of architecture.

With regards to the capitalist comment: well, yes obviously I know all developments exist in this sense. But based on the site spacing and the basically sheer walls, this development appears as a goal of space efficiency and nothing else. It gives nothing back to the city. It feels like it resigns responsibility to the public.
 
Like I said before, there's no way this should be approved (especially with the 10 metre separation distance between this proposal and the HBC tower). There shouldnt even be an exception made in this case since the proposal isnt anything special.
 
It's not exactly a head-turner but if every building were something "out there" than none would be.

I feel bad for the units that will be looking right into someone's office though. Maybe the person who works there can buy the unit and built a makeshift bridge between the two windows.
 
Well it's good that no units look directly into the office then. It is a solid fire wall except on the east and west sides where a small, glass reveal circles the corner.

I see this (and RCMI) as positive steps in the right direction as they move away from the anachronistic, block busting, tower-on-podium nonsense to which we've become accustomed and towards the development of small, individual parcels. This is generally much harder to do since it requires more money and the margins on the returns aren't as generous but it's far better for the pedestrian as it ensures a varied and vibrant streetscape free from the bloated drudgery that a Shoppers or ground floor grocery store ensures. If developers now think they can make it work, I'm in!
 
Units are really small. Overall, the floor plan does its job. I'd rather a skinny tower be bland than heavy on the articulation.
 
The design isn't great, as others have mentioned. That said, I am impressed that there is no parking proposed whatsoever. Is that a first for a tower this size in Toronto?
 
Residences of the RCMI has a couple spots for car share I think, so I believe that this one is the first to have zero spots proposed.

42
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top