Thanks. I know you have somewhat "mainstream" tastes judging by your massing studies--think insanely tall phallic objects which don't turn me on--I like to be "different" but its got me thinking about the entire area. I'll bore y'all with that in the fantasy renderings thread. For example, I had an idea for what some are calling "Jane Jacobs Square"--which would be rather ironic considering the context is precisely what she hated. Anyhow one last 501 YUM NimbyTect rendering before I move on.

nimbytect501yum27oct201.png


Nimbies, is a one tower development the answer?
 
urbandreamer said:
Nimbies, is a one tower development the answer?
Click to expand...

I completely agree that one tower is the solution for this site (one massive tower). I think that the developer was forced into the two-tower proposal as a result of the city planning department's insistence on "point towers" with small floor plates. The obvious solution at this site is one tower with a massive floor plate.

I like your proposal. Not sure to what extent the tower is technically feasible but I would like to see something along those lines. The concept for the podium is also very good as it breaks down into five separate facades instead of one big monolithic podium as was constructed at Aura (again, we can "thank" our know-it-all city planners for that mess).
 
Last edited:
Peepers said:
I completely agree that one tower is the solution for this site (one massive tower). I think that the developer was forced into the two-tower proposal as a result of the city planning department's insistence on "point towers" with small floor plates. The obvious solution at this site is one tower with a massive floor plate.

I like your proposal. Not sure to what extent the tower is technically feasible but I would like to see something along those lines. The concept for the podium is also very good as it breaks down into five separate facades instead of one big monolithic podium as was constructed at Aura (again, we can "thank" our know-it-all city planners for that mess).
Click to expand...

It's refreshing to hear critiques from this perspective. Crappy developments are sometime the result of unintended consequences from planners and planning policies. One of my biggest pet peeves are a breed of tight-ass planners that end up blaming "greedy developers" for all of the world's ills, yet try to take all the credit whenever a development on their watch turns out to be a success. It's really a team effort. In spite of the best planning policies, bad developers can make bad developments. But the same is true with bad planners, as they can derail and bastardize excellent development proposals.

In Toronto's case, the issue boils down to ridiculously outdated zoning codes. Most of the city is still under a zoning regime from 1986, which is not consistent with Toronto's 2002 Official Plan. Toronto planners do an excellent job at balancing the numerous planning policies and impacts to the community against development proposals and unfortunate political influence.
 
Err....yeah, creative, and impressive, but really? It would stick out like a sore thumb in that area, as for that hotel, it was completely renovated from the old HoJo's that was there only 10 years ago, so I wouldn't count on it being torn down any time soon. I hate being critical, and I truly admire, and can appreciate, what you're trying to do here (I admire, very much, anyone with so much talent and creativity, as, sadly, I have neither), but honestly, I just couldn't see it happening there, surrounded by bleak, boring buildings. It would, however, kick ass closer to the lake, but hey, that's just my personal opinion, what do I know?, I work in health care! Thanks for the pics :)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Peepers said:
I completely agree that one tower is the solution for this site (one massive tower). I think that the developer was forced into the two-tower proposal as a result of the city planning department's insistence on "point towers" with small floor plates. The obvious solution at this site is one tower with a massive floor plate.

I like your proposal. Not sure to what extent the tower is technically feasible but I would like to see something along those lines. The concept for the podium is also very good as it breaks down into five separate facades instead of one big monolithic podium as was constructed at Aura (again, we can "thank" our know-it-all city planners for that mess).
Click to expand...

Why should we blame the Planning Department for Graziani + Corazza's failures?
 
AlvinofDiaspar said:
Don't blame the planners for that one - it was a monolithic podium from the very start:

http://urbantoronto.ca/forum/showth...-of-College-Park-III-(Canderel-78s-G-C)/page3

AoD
Click to expand...

I made this statement based on the criticism the city planning department directed at the proposal for 460 Yonge (Sizzlers site).

The architect proposed a podium that comprised of 3 (or 4?) facades , each of differing style, i.e. trying to duplicate the look of the original street wall. The Design Review Panel derided it as "architectural pastiche". The planning department told them to go back to the drawing board instructing them to:

" simplify podium elevations and reduce the number of individual façade expressions "


If the Aura podium was a monolithic podium from the start could this be the result of discussions with the planning department since the planners seem to have a problem with "individual facade expressions".

http://urbantoronto.ca/forum/showth...oneridge-seeking-60s-G-C)?p=677012#post677012
 
You are reaching - first of all, DRP isn't "the planning department", and second the proposal as it appeared in the original elevations are from before it went to the DRP - it show little to now articulation of the block in question. To transpose the recommendation for 460 Yonge by the DRP to this project is intellectual dishonesty. Besides, are you suggesting that simplifying and reducing the number of individual facade expressions and moving away from historical pastiche by default results in monotony? That is more a function of the skills of the architect in question than a rather generalized recommendation. Hell, the DRP report actually gave them pointers how to do it in the case of 460 Yonge (since you started using this example):

Response to Context
Proposed design response to context needs considerable work. Develop an integrated/sensitive approach that does not mimic history (development along south side of King Street west of Jarvis cited as a good example), and acknowledges Yonge as the primary street and Grenville as a secondary street. (p. 6)

You have also conveniently neglected to quote additional recommendations that clearly provides a vision of elements that would help to animate and break down the block plus reference the original Goodfellows building.

- visually differentiate between office and residential entries
- recess the office main entry creating a “reveal” condition between the existing Odd Fellows building and the new façade to the north
- simplify podium elevations and reduce the number of individual façade expressions
- align new with existing Odd Fellows building as precedent in terms of datum lines, materiality, etc
- scale down and simplify canopies
- create visual difference between Yonge (main street) and Grenville (side street) elevations (p. 7)

http://www.toronto.ca/planning/2012/agendas/pdf/drp_minutes_17jul12.pdf

Clearly, there is no intention on the part of the DRP to create monolithic monotony. Now let's read into some real comments about the input of the nascent DRP instead of borrowing it from another project and present it as "fact":

http://www.thestar.com/article/276302--a-new-aura-a-new-era

AoD
 
Last edited:
The attempt to mask the parking garage through building materials, articulation and a handful of residential units at one elevation was
described variously as being weird, strange, creepy and fake.
Click to expand...

Hilarious.
 
I like the look of the Yonge street frontage in the render provided in the report:

7hHG1.jpg


At the end of the day though I think they're just trying to jam to much onto this site. Reducing the number of units, and thus parking, is how you make everything workable.
 
I think the looks good...though the trees aren't incidental. If they're not there, that thing is bulkier and more oppressive.
 
From the DRP:
- explore a single tower concept

Yes please. A single massive tower and a humanely-sized podium would be good enough for me.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top