Dont get it:confused:...do they want something thats not so world class...or maybe just something shorter, plain and more Toronto looking (box)

The panel had no qualms with the building itself — they praised its "beautiful, world-class" appearance
 
The panel had no qualms with the building itself — they praised its "beautiful, world-class"

Reject a building that you think is "beautiful, world-class", because it's size might set a precedents for poorer buildings to be built in the future.

I'm confused. Isn't it the DRP's job to approve good/ great architecture? How about this building setting a precedents for only "beautiful, world-class" buildings to be built in the area. Regardless of their size.

I'm beginning to think that some on the DRP would prefer not to have innovation architecture built in Toronto, because then there might be something to compare their own poorly design buildings to. God forbid the bar get raised.
 
The most ridiculous part of their decision is that this tower technically isn't even within the Distillery District.
 
toto said:
I'm confused. Isn't it the DRP's job to approve good/ great architecture? How about this building setting a precedents for only "beautiful, world-class" buildings to be built in the area. Regardless of their size..
Click to expand...


I think you are confused, you cannot separate a building from its context and location. The City website explains further "The Design Review Panel assists Council in fulfilling Official Plan objectives by providing City staff with professional design advice on public and private development. The Panel's goal is to improve people's quality of life by promoting design excellence within the public realm, including the pursuit of high quality architecture, landscape architecture, urban design and environmental sustainability. The Panel also plays a significant role in engendering an informed, public debate about the importance of good design within our City."
 
I was initially much in favour of the Design Review Panel. What could be better than a group of architecturally literate people with the job of recommending that buildings embodying good architecture be approved, and bad architecture be rejected?

However, I am having serious second thoughts. For whatever reason, this Panel has adopted a consistent attitude of "reject everything", regardless of the particular merits of each project they consider. This project is a perfect example of this attitude run amok.
 
I don't know if they're that bad. I like the proposal, consider it an acceptable solution, and disagree with the panel's decision, but I think they did a more than adequate job of explaining why they went the way they did. They were very clear in specifying that the tower was fine, and the question for them is the heritage side of things. I personally don't see how this building can be repurposed without significant interior alterations, and would prefer to see the shell remain while the interior is gutted as opposed to having the whole thing burn/fall down ten years from now. I was also initially opposed to the high-rise development of the Distillery, but that ship has long since sailed, and given the way things have gone I don't see any additional harm from another new tower at that location (and realistically, the Distillery is a more interesting place to visit now that it isn't empty most of the time).
 
Much earlier, when all we had to go on was a rough copy of the rendering, I speculated that, when it came to the relationship between the heritage building and the tower:

Urban Shocker said:
Does the relationship not consist of taking the proportions of the heritage building and transposing them into a series of stacked, elevated, contemporary repeats?
Click to expand...

In fact, it turns out that it doesn't, and I was disappointed by that, and I agree with the report when it states:

"Other Members, however, felt that the heritage building was not well integrated with the new proposal, given the proportion of the addition, and in consideration of the broader issues outlined above."
 
http://www.thestar.com/news/article...r-distillery-district-condo-hotel-development

Builder still on track for Distillery District condo/hotel development

Published On Wed Feb 22 2012
Donovan Vincent
Staff Reporter

The developer behind a proposed 34-storey hotel/condominium project in the Distillery District still wants to proceed with the plan, despite the city’s concerns about its height and fit for the historic area.

“We haven’t been told it’s a no-go,’’ said David Jackson, one of four partners with Cityscape Development, co-owner of the Distillery with Dundee Realty. Jackson said that, though his team believes the design is appropriate, they’re open to exploring options.
Click to expand...

The project, estimated to cost up to $130 million, would be the first hotel in the popular tourist area. A total of 88 hotel suites and 246 condo units are planned, and the developers hope to have the project completed by 2017.
Click to expand...

A preliminary city report notes the proposed height and density are a “significant departure’’ from what was outlined in the original Gooderham & Worts heritage master plan, and a secondary plan for the King and Parliament Sts. area, neither of which contemplated additions to the rack house at Mill and Trinity Sts.

The rack house, currently vacant, contains six floors of traditional racks used to house large barrels for aging whisky. Doing a hotel conversion would take a long time because the racks, which would have to be removed currently support the building, Jackson said.
Click to expand...

Although the quality of design is not in question, the panel majority felt the “massing’’ — its overall size — was not appropriate in that location, given its potential impact on Trinity St. and the area’s heritage continuity. There were also concerns about the shadow cast by such a tall building.

...Jackson, of Cityscape, said his team isn’t “fixated” on 34 storeys and will soon turn attention to the height concerns.

...A final report on the application is set for sometime this summer.
Click to expand...
 
Not sure why the height concerns considering a couple of hundred metres away are two buildings being built that are taller. Wrong side of the street?
 
I'm still trying to reconcile the DRP's view that this is too tall for the area and would be even worse if it were south of Mill with the fact that there are three new towers south of Mill taller than this one that border directly on the distillery district. If it were shading that would be one thing, but there is no shading as it is north of distillery.

With good designs like this one, aA's design for the Greyhound parcel, a new tower at King East Centre, and a series of empty lots to build on, the stretch of Front (and south to Mill) between Sherbourne and Cherry could be turned into a great modern design district that plays off the historical market and distillery districts. There is so little in this area (of significance, really just the Opera Company, Police Station and unused heritage buildings on Mill) and lots of land. Complement the new structures with a great park/facility for the First Parliament site and it would be a great area that I think could be well served by taller buildings.
 
Not a fan.

Although I do agree that the existing heritage building will need to be gutted for it to be re-purposed, there is something unsettling about this high tower thrusting out of such a "humble" building. Really reminds me of the chestburster from Aliens. Or something fell out of the sky onto the old warehouse.

I like the tower design itself though, but it might be too high for the heritage building it is supposedly trying to preserve. I'm much more in favour of something like the Seagram Lofts or Robert Watson, where only a few floors are added rather than a honking tower (yes, yes I know precedence has been set in the area for highrises and yes yes it's prime real estate and yes yes, I like skyscrapers too...). There's plenty of space in this area for a highrise, why not save more for mid-rise to create a more dynamic mix and better built environment?
 
If I understannd correctly, the Distillery folk received permission for considerably greater heights for their three condo buildings because they persuaded the City that the only way they could restore the Distillery District was to be given this. That seems to have worked well and it sounds like a fair exchange - extra height/density for heritage preservation. Now they want to build a 4th tower (a very beautiful one) and will do some more minor heritage preservation - the Rack House. Is this as fair an exchange and will it set a precedent so that the next developer who appears can point to "all the other towers in the area" and get extra height/density not based on heritage preservation or neighbourhood improvement? Should the City NEVER allow extra height/density- no, in my opinion - or should exceptions be made which can then become precedents? I don't know and it is clearly not an easy question.
 
^^I agree that precedent is a concern with these things, though probably less so if the City is able to remove itself from the jurisdiction of the OMB. The view I am stating, and it is of course only my view, is that this particular area north and northwest of the distillery would in fact be well served by increased height if there is a focus on good design. The area is basically a clean slate, meaning there isn't an existing neighbourhood fabric to protect. The existing Market/St. Lawrence area to the west/southwest, upcoming West Donlands to the east and King East to the north are primarily low to mid-rise, but in my view stand alone from this stretch of Front and Mill that right now is mostly empty.

There is a lot of empty space but the lots are huge so few owners. I think the City should try to coordinate development and be agreeable to height if the design warrants. Get the owners of Greyhound parcel (Cityzen), Downtown Acura parcel, Staples parcel (Greenpark), the First Parliament site (who is negotiating a land swap), Gansevoort, the Toronto Dodge site and Front between Trinity and Mill (is some/all of that City owned?) and talk about how to develop the area. My impression is that most of these lands are owned by reasonably sophisticated developers who could see the advantage of this approach. Use the section 37 funds to finance a great First Parliament park/facility.

I know there are objections that the area is low to mid-rise. I just don't agree with it. I think this is a different neighbourhood. Call it First Parliament.
 
Ahsun said:
Not a fan.

Although I do agree that the existing heritage building will need to be gutted for it to be re-purposed, there is something unsettling about this high tower thrusting out of such a "humble" building. Really reminds me of the chestburster from Aliens. Or something fell out of the sky onto the old warehouse.

I like the tower design itself though, but it might be too high for the heritage building it is supposedly trying to preserve. I'm much more in favour of something like the Seagram Lofts or Robert Watson, where only a few floors are added rather than a honking tower (yes, yes I know precedence has been set in the area for highrises and yes yes it's prime real estate and yes yes, I like skyscrapers too...). There's plenty of space in this area for a highrise, why not save more for mid-rise to create a more dynamic mix and better built environment?
Click to expand...


I agree, and even if Cityscape tries to scale the tower down, it would be no point, because its not worth spending money to add an extra 10-20 floors to an old HERITAGE warehouse. Even if Cityscape is granted the approval, I think the plan would eventually be abandoned, because Cityscape actually admits in the last TheStar article:

"Doing a hotel conversion would take a long time because the racks, would have to be removed currently support the building, Jackson said."

This means that if they calculate it properly, its not worth taking a chance to severely damage a building, just by removing its racks, which in this case would be referred as its pillars. I think if after this summer, Cityscape doesn't get the green-light, I think they will give up, and get profit by just selling the building, because its seems Cityscape wants to build, and at the same time doesn't.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top