The article doesn't say 67, it says 65. It further states "687 units atop a two-storey...retail podium". This was interpreted as 65+2. The City staff report recommending refusal for the sign variances for thrid-party signs states 65. In this case the article is actually correct, just not exactly clear.
 
marcus_a_j said:
The article doesn't say 67, it says 65. It further states "687 units atop a two-storey...retail podium". This was interpreted as 65+2. The City staff report recommending refusal for the sign variances for thrid-party signs states 65. In this case the article is actually correct, just not exactly clear.
Click to expand...

But the article does say 67 storeys, right in the title.
 
My bad, I never actually read the title of the article, but I still stand by what I said about City documents conveying more accurate info.
 
I don't think I was ever in favour of the "blue" lipstick - or any of the proposals to be honest, but I think if anything you can see the times they represented. Back when the blue lipstick was proposed, every large project had to include a multi-plex cinema. All that has changed today is how we have replaced the cinemas with lots of retail and themed restaurants. Whatever happens here, I hope it....um..well, I hope it doesn't suck.

p5
 
I attended a Bloor East Neighbourhood Association (BENA) annual meeting this evening, and while the "keynote" speaker was Kyle Rae, the community planning manager for downtown (Al Rezoski) was also there to spot Kyle and field questions. I came down and chatted with Al (incidentally, a very approachable and knowledgeable man) a bit after the meeting, and I got a sneak peak at the application documents for 1BE (no photos, sorry).

I'm not very good at interpreting elevation drawings, so I'll do my best. Based on what I could tell and what Al described, the "curvy" aspect of the building consists of seemingly randomly undulating balconies that are somewhat reminiscent of the new Aqua condo in Chicago, or Clear Spirits in the distillery district. The tower is 65 storeys tall and is capped by a gently sloping rooftop crown/mechanical element (a la Ritz, although not nearly as dramatic) and the entire tower appears just shy of 220m in height. The tower portion occupies the north-easterly portion of the site (fronting Bloor), while the podium (4-storeys tall, I think) wraps back around at Yonge and Bloor with a notch at the corner and continues down Yonge. The podium will also sport the same wavy facade that continues up along the tower. The passageway from Yonge St. through the construction site to the subway entrance in the Xerox building will be retained as a galleria that runs through the podium.

That's about all I can recall for now. Again, keep in mind that these descriptions were based on a cursory glance by an untrained eye (not to mention my inability to articulate certain architectural features). In any case, I'm sure drawings will be floating around on the intarwebs in no time.

edit: I should add that vehicular access (i.e. underground parking, service bays, etc.) will be via Hayden St., and that short stretch of Hayden behind 1BE will be converted to 2-way.
 
Last edited:
marcus_a_j said:
My bad, I never actually read the title of the article, but I still stand by what I said about City documents conveying more accurate info.
Click to expand...

You're right. I emailed the author of the article and she kindly responded that the headline (which she didn't write) is indeed wrong. The tower will be 65 storeys in total. This confirms Spoonman's account, and explains why the tower will be only ~220 metres.

Also, the residential amenities will NOT be part of the podium.
 
Last edited:
Mongo said:
Or it could look like the original 'peanut' design for 75 St. Nicholas Street, only taller:

67StNicholas-6.jpg
Click to expand...

We can only wish it is something so elegant.... *crosses fingers*
 
Spoonman said:
Based on what I could tell and what Al described, the "curvy" aspect of the building consists of seemingly randomly undulating balconies that are somewhat reminiscent of the new Aqua condo in Chicago, or Clear Spirits in the distillery district.
Click to expand...

That would be great! Aqua is a really cool building. There was a great article in the New Yorker about it a couple of weeks ago. I don't mean to go off topic, but I thought this paragraph was pretty interesting, and could be relevant if Number One Bloor goes directly to the sidewalk level without a setback on the podium:

"The success of Aqua isn’t just that [architect Jeanne] Gang figured out a smart, low-budget way of turning an ordinary glass condo tower into something that looks exciting. The design is anchored in common sense in two ways that aren’t immediately apparent, making the building, from a technical point of view, even more remarkable than it looks.

The balcony overhangs of the façade serve an environmental purpose, shading apartments from the hot summer sun. More ingenious still, they protect the building from the force of wind, one of the most difficult challenges in skyscraper engineering. The landscape of rolling hills and valleys created by the balconies effectively confuses the heavy Chicago winds, giving them no clear path. The wind is broken up so much that the building didn’t require a device known as a “tuned mass damper”—a mass weighing hundreds of tons that engineers place at the top of tall buildings to stabilize them against the vibrations and sway caused by the force of wind. And using the curves to dissipate the wind gave Gang a bonus: she was able to put balconies on every floor, all the way up. Usually, condominiums sixty or seventy floors above the street don’t have balconies, because it’s just too windy up there to go outside."

Read more: http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/skyline/2010/02/01/100201crsk_skyline_goldberger
 
From the City's Develpment Application Status webpage

App # 10 111411 STE 27 SA

Site plan approval for new mixed use building - 63900 combined residential commercial space - 6500m2 non res - 2 stories above grade - 785 dewlling units - 497 parking spaces - 5 levels below grade parking.- 65 stories above grade. Refer to parent by-law 1167-2008 - Previous Site plan approval applied for building under 07 277668 STE27 OZ
 
Ugh... I am not a fan of Aqua in Chicago. despite all its advantages for mitigating wind it is not as beautiful as everyone is deluded to think. It is only cool from directly below. Almost all pictures of it are from this extreme low angle. From any moderate distance the 'coolness' evaporates and it looks like an unfinished 60's era international style skyscraper that was damaged in a bombing attack.

From the distance that Number One Bloor will most often be viewed, by the majority of Torontonians, Aqua would look like a big grey box. I agree the WOW factor, when you are right below it, is awesome, but as a skyscraper it would add little to the skyline view. I hope GG does a better job doing "Curvy" than Aqua does.

As proof of this point, try and find pictures of Aqua that are NOT from right below. They are not easy to find. This is a view of Aqua you almost never see: From a few city blocks away:

mill-pk-aqua.jpg

(Courtesy http://hfboards.com/showthread.php?t=692277)
 
I am in complete agreement that praise for the visual impact of Aqua's exterior is overblown: Traynor has put it very well. Goldberger's explanations regarding the wind load mitigation put that building's engineering design in a more favourable light for me now though. Here's hoping that if Number One Bloor copies this device - I mean is heavily inspired by it - that it works better visually here.

42
 
An Aqua in Toronto would have glass panel balconies which would likely make it more appealing from afar.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top