No. You simply don't "get it." It has nothing to do with car usage, but rather, car design. Is P.Centre designed around the car or not? With that giant circular (and unnecessary) driveway, I would say yes, it's very autocentric.

Why not just have one narrow lane leading to the underground garage--like the lane between Queen West and Richmond St? That is smart planning. Imagine if every four buildings on either Queen or Richmond had a large circular drive breaking up the streetwall--would the street be as successful?

So my main problem with this development is as a pedestrian, walking along what really should be its main street, given the waterfront focus of the area, QQ, you feel overwhelmed by a giant wasteland devoted to the car. (Of course the architecture is nothing to write home about either.) If I'd been the planner, I'd have built the place with a continuous 10-20s streetwall with an interor courtyard/green roof on the 10th or so floor, and have six towers on top. Have an E/W alley (or even tunnel) cut through the middle leading to the parking garage.

It's not location, even architecture I'm talking about here; I'm criticizing the urban plan.
 
by me.
IMG_1955.jpg
 
maestro said:
Wow, Bay Street has been upgraded to a destination!

I think it's absolutely ludicrious to say that residents of Pinnacle Centre will drive everywhere. This development is no more removed from downtown than any Esplanade co-op . OMG! a driveway with drop off areas. There are over 1800 units and public parking. It's quite diminutive by comparsion to Ice, Four Seasons, 18 Yorkville, etc.
Click to expand...

Take a look a Bay St some time... you do see people strolling. It's not a top destination, but it has some life to it. People do step outside of their Bay St condos and walk. There are restaurants, cafes, shops along the strip.

The location of Pinnacle is not the issue, it's the design of the development. This area currently has a wasteland feel to it... all new developments in the area should be trying to reverse that. I hope that the street level retail that Pinnacle has will add some life to the area, but I fear the whole area south of Front St will be botched and will simply be a collection of towers housing car drivers. I hope I'm wrong.
 
I think driveways or drop-off areas are necessary and not indicative of where they are located be it at Warden and Lawrence or Bay & Wellesley. People need to be dropped off via cab, friends or co-workers, those who are elderly or physically challenged not to mention the number of courier drop-offs that must happen in a giant complex like this in one day. The alternative is to have a bend in the road (or none at all like some condo/apartment complexes) which pedestrians have to walk around and cyclists have their lane partially or fully blocked by vehicles which present even more opportunities of getting smacked by doors being opened as they cycle past. I'll take Pinnacle's practical and attractive approach to vehicles here anytime. One day long after I'm dead when the car is no more they can tear up the driveway and turn it into an English garden or something. Until then it's a practical solution to getting residents safely into their building and pedestrians/cyclists can pass on by in a much safer fashion.
 
dt_toronto_geek said:
Suite layouts, location and views trump architecture if I'm buying. I have high hopes for other promising, upcoming downtown projects such as X2, ICE, U and several others but I wouldn't buy into any of them. Most of the apartment layouts do not come close to what I'm looking for in a home.
Click to expand...

I beg to differ. As Torontonians become more interested in architecture, they're going to look for it in choosing the building they want to live in. Attractive buildings instantly command more attention and good architecture will probably help increase resale values.
 
junctionist said:
I beg to differ. As Torontonians become more interested in architecture, they're going to look for it in choosing the building they want to live in. Attractive buildings instantly command more attention and good architecture will probably help increase resale values.
Click to expand...

I just don't buy that a place which has a kitchen that is part of a 10' X 18' living/dining room along one wall, bedrooms that don't exceed 10' X 12' with small balconies and a "media centre" which is a corner in the apartment entrance-way will not increase in value the way an apartment with decent sized principle rooms will. Let's see how prices at BSN with good layouts but a mediocre looking building (to my eyes) appreciate once it's registered. I think that will prove my point - but I could be wrong...
 
Last edited:
No. You simply don't "get it." It has nothing to do with car usage, but rather, car design. Is P.Centre designed around the car or not? With that giant circular (and unnecessary) driveway, I would say yes, it's very autocentric.
Click to expand...

You focus on the one area that's set aside for cars. The rest of the Lakeshore, Yonge and Bay Street sections are retail. In fact there's a cool little coffee shop almost directly under the Gardner on Bay.

Pinnacle-Jan17,10(1).jpg


ganjavih,
The area is greatly improved. And I'm pretty sure you would approve of the podium along Yonge Street. As the lots disappear a real neighbourhood is being born. My only complaint with this project is four towers that look pretty much like most of the new condos in the area.
 
dt_toronto_geek said:
I just don't buy that has a kitchen that is part of a 10' X 18' living/dining room along one wall, bedrooms that don't exceed 10' X 12' with small balconies and a "media centre" which is a nook in the apartment entrance-way will not increase in value the way an apartment with decent sized principle rooms will. Let's see how prices at BSN with good layouts but a mediocre looking building (to my eyes) appreciate once it's registered. I think that will prove my point - but I could be wrong...
Click to expand...

Architecture is one of many factors. If there's a building with similar layouts and common areas but better architecture, then its resale might be higher. There are many plausible scenarios where architecture won't be a deciding factor in a buying decision, but it can't be written off either. After all, there are plenty of buildings with similar layouts and common areas.
 
One of the most frequent uses of very short term parking downtown is by restaurant delivery road warriers. Given the combination of location plus the demographic of many of the Pinnacle Centre residents, having a driveway for the Pizza Pizza, Swiss Chalet, etc. drivers to park while not blocking a lane on Harbour, Bay, or Yonge Streets while making their deliveries is a real asset. Having walked by the Pinnacle Centre many times, my personal feeling is that those denigrating the place due to the driveway are looking for any excuse to be negative. While the overall architecture could have been more inspired, the driveway is, in the overall context, in my opinion, a relatively minor issue.

AHK
 
urbandreamer said:
No. You simply don't "get it."
Click to expand...

It has nothing to do with getting "it." It's about getting you, and you're opinion is just one of a number, and not some special objective view that is beyond criticism. Your remarks about the building somehow being "suburban" are quite pointless.

Is P.Centre designed around the car or not? With that giant circular (and unnecessary) driveway, I would say yes, it's very autocentric.

Why not just have one narrow lane leading to the underground garage--like the lane between Queen West and Richmond St? That is smart planning.
Click to expand...

Actually, the buildings are designed for people to live in. By virtue of their height, the large number of suites contained inside them and the small amount of space allotted to this large number of people, this fact should be obvious. Regarding the driveway, you forget that the people in these buildings also take taxis and receive deliveries. Maybe you don't like that either, but there is nothing wrong with getting those vehicles off Harbour Street.

So my main problem with this development is as a pedestrian, walking along what really should be its main street, given the waterfront focus of the area, QQ, you feel overwhelmed by a giant wasteland devoted to the car.
Click to expand...

If you are making reference to the area devoted to the driveway, your allusion to a wasteland is nothing but hyperbole. What you miss is that developments like this are bringing people into that area of the city. Continued development in the immediate vicinity is transforming it gradually. That's already happening without your participation in the planning process. Of course, you don't have to like it (as you don't like much anyway), but regardless of what you think about this project, it is making a positive contribution to the area.
 
Bay, Lakeshore could use some downsizing and add streetscape to it. As for the form of Success, I think it's fine thanks to its height.
 
hbl33 said:
Bay, Lakeshore could use some downsizing and add streetscape to it. As for the form of Success, I think it's fine thanks to its height.
Click to expand...

It's height is, to a great extent, why this building is so widely criticized. Height+uninspired design=failure, height+attractive design=pass. Buildings this high should really go through a mandatory design review board to at least give them a fighting chance.
 
I fail to see what's so terrible about these buildings. In fact, I think Success I is quite nice--slim, well-proportioned, good play of verticality and horizontality, properly resolved roof-line. And the other two towers aren't mere clones of each other either. What's the problem?
 
Last edited:
I think it's a dull green box that elicits little enthusiasm. I find nothing alluring or inspiring about it, nor it's little cousins next door.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top