Is those orange spandrel panels I see? The overall effect of the rendering is cool but I dunno what this would look like in reality... Or whether this kind of design on such a massive building will stand the test of time. I agree with SPIRE about the cantilevered flatiron: awesome. It would be even cooler if it kicked out over the Gardiner so vehicles would go under it and people inside of it could observe the river of traffic below.
 
Was that rendering for real? Hume seemed to indicate today that this place is getting a rough ride in design review.
 
ya the idea about people being able to see whats happening under the gardiner is a great idea however lol i'm new to this forum and their are a lot of great ideas posted here how does one go about conveying these ideas to the appropriate people lol in public consultations?
 
UrbanFervour said:
Is those orange spandrel panels I see? The overall effect of the rendering is cool but I dunno what this would look like in reality... Or whether this kind of design on such a massive building will stand the test of time. I agree with SPIRE about the cantilevered flatiron: awesome. It would be even cooler if it kicked out over the Gardiner so vehicles would go under it and people inside of it could observe the river of traffic below.
Click to expand...

Sounds cool, but I doubt it would make sense to actually build. Residents will probably begin to overlook at after the first week (it would be too loud for a lounge), and I doubt it would be much of a tourist attraction if they marketed it as such.
 
Travis said:
Potential new rendering (?)

7094651939_d47f67e3ac_o.png
Click to expand...
I have never liked this building till this newest render or mom up what ever it is who ever did it. Genius! The best idea yet for this building. would be cool to look at comming down the gardener and viewed from basically anywhere in the city the termite in wood your talking about I personally think it looks more electronic. And yes Borg cube like wich I have personally always thought was cool.
 
Last edited:
Based on the podium design and shape of the tower in that rendering, I'm thinking that's an old rendering, not a new one.
 
Shame if it is. great spot for dramatics and visual interest.
Not steril clean lined block like the last one I seen were big strips of balconies created a very cleaned line look. Mind it was nice but not for Toronto. To much of that glass on glass look spent look very good. Need color and contrast. Please someone come up with more then the latest designs for the city something out there that attracts attention in good ways not just nice from street levels other
 
ttk77 said:
Was that rendering for real? Hume seemed to indicate today that this place is getting a rough ride in design review.
Click to expand...

Indeed, Hume made a rather tangential reference to Ten York in his Friday column about the City's search for a Chief Planner:

Meanwhile, an unfortunate 75-storey tower Tridel and Build Toronto want to put on a tiny sliver of land downtown at York and Harbour Sts. has been excoriated by the Waterfront Design Review Panel for the banality of its architecture and how little it would bring to the public realm.
Click to expand...

I agree with Hume on a lot, but I think he's a little out of line here. The various iterations of the tower design (and who knows which one actually went to the Waterfront DRP) we've seen have been all over the map and definitely aren't everyone's cup of tea, but if you want to be critical about what Wallman's come up with, "banal" is the wrong word. Call it fussy, call it busy, call it tacky, or let the snarky neomodernist contingent come up with something wittier, fine -- some will disagree, but the sentiment will at least seem justifiable. But "banal"? If there's a proposal in this neck of the woods that most deserves the b-word, it would be the proposed towers on the far side of York Street, but in light of who the architect is, I doubt highly Hume will be pulling that word out to describe them anytime soon.
 
Comments from the March 7 WT DRP:

2.0 Private Development Proposal: 10 York Street
ID#: 1048
Project Type: Buildings/Structures
Location: 10 York Street
Proponent: Tridel/Build Toronto
Architect/Designer: Wallman Architects
Review Stage: Schematic Design
Review Round: One
Presenter(s): Rudy Wallman
Delegation: Steve Daniels, Tridel

1.1 Introduction to the Issues
James Parakh, Urban Designer with the City of Toronto, introduced the project, noting the context of the building within the York Street corridor. Mr. Parakh noted that the City of Toronto Official Plan states that Tall Buildings should be designed to consist of three parts, carefully integrated into a single whole, requesting that the Panel please comment on the various component parts of the tower including:

a) Base: How well does the buildings base integrate with the surrounding public realm. Consider grade relationships, set backs on York Street, relationship to the Gardiner as well as the exterior expression of the podium and it’s effectiveness in concealing above grade parking.
b) Middle (shaft): Please comment on the design of the middle (shaft) of the tower, including the relevant components (projecting window bays and vertical coloured glass striations) which make up the shaft.
c) Top: Please comment on the design of the top of the tower and its role in contributing to the skyline character and integrating roof top mechanical systems into the design

1.2 Project Presentation
Rudy Wallman, Principal with Wallman Architects inc. introduced the project team, site context and site statistics, noting the amount of development and towers in the immediate vicinity of the project. Mr. Wallman then presented the plans, conceptual landscape features, relationship of the podium to the street and shadow studies.

1.3 Panel Questions
The Chair then asked the Panel for questions of clarification only.
One Panel member asked where the application currently was in the City’s review’s process. Mr. Wallman answered that the team has applied for a Zoning Bylaw Amendment (Re-Zoning) as the proposal does not confirm with the current zoning in the area.
Another Panel member wondered what the status of the Landscape plan was, beyond the property line in the public realm. Mr. Wallman answered that they are currently coordinating the planters and trees to minimize the impact with below-grade services.
Another Panel member asked if there had been any coordination of the set-backs with other developments along York Street. Another Panel member asked what the degree of consistency was the trees, planting and sidewalk widths were as well.
One Panel member enquired about the conceptual idea behind the design of the tower. Mr. Wallman stated that they were aiming for a contemporary expression that balanced the glazing ratio of 60 percent solid to 40 percent glazed, adding that the colours and pattern were inspired by the Northern lights.

1.4 Panel Comments
The Chair then opened the meeting to Panel comments.
Several Panel members felt that the project should be seen and presented in relation to the Ice Towers to the North, Maple Leaf Square, Telus, and the development to the South in order to establish a cohesive urban design framework and continuity for York Street. Several Panel members expressed concern that the building face fell further into the perceived public realm than the buildings to the South. Several Panel members felt that the podium should be pulled back to align with the buildings to the south. One Panel member felt that the face of the tower should come all the way down to meet York Street.
One Panel member felt that the relationship between the base and the tower was incongruous. Another Panel member agreed, feeling that the tower did not pick up on the subtle elegance of the base. Another Panel member agreed, feeling that there were architectural opportunities to shape the buildings that could be pushed with a triangular site. One Panel member felt that the “clipped†corner of the tower was creating an awkward condition.
One Panel member felt that the rectangular form of the tower was not in keeping with the image of the “Northern Lights†as stated. Another Panel member agreed, feeling that the extensions above the tower were not strengthening the design of the tower. Another Panel member felt that the idea of the tower dematerializing into the sky could be pushed further, adding that there was a lost opportunity to shape the top of the building. Another Panel member felt that the top of the tower might be able to have a more volumetric relationship with the form of the tower as a whole. Another Panel member agreed, noting that locating special Penthouses on top could help with the shaping.
Another Panel member felt that there could be residential units in the Podium. Another Panel member felt that there sould be more openings in the podium. Another Panel member agreed, noting that the revenue from the residential units could potentially support the costs of mechanized parking. One Panel member felt that the team should look at the work of architecture firm Herzog and De Meuron’s parking garage in Miami, Florida as an interesting precedent. One Panel member felt that the perimeter of the building should be animated more, adding that the four metre fence along Harbour Street would be redundant if the ground plane is treated well.
Another Panel member questioned the location of the café on the North side of the building, feeling that there was a lost opportunity to face the future park or even the off ramp, instead of Lake Shore Boulevard. Another Panel member agreed that the retail should be prejudiced to the South, noting that if the off-ramp ended at Simcoe Street, then Harbour Street will become a more desirable street.
Several Panel members stated that they had no issue with the proposed height of the building. One Panel member added that the height had to be “earned†however, feeling that the higher the building, the more spectacular the architecture should be.
One Panel member felt that the patterning of the elevations seemed cluttered, adding that the proponent should consider four different elevational treatments to respond to the sun. Another Panel member stated that they endorsed the basic principal of the strategy of the elevation, but added that it seemed too busy at the moment to have any real power. One Panel member urged the team to look at the work of artist James Turrell and his work with colour and the ephemeral nature of light. Another Panel member felt that the north façade should be designed to consider a future where the Gardiner Expressway does not exist.

1.5 Summary of the Panel’s Key Issues
The Chair then summarized the recommendations of the Panel:
1) Public Realm of York Street Corridor.
a) Setbacks should be coordinated with Telus, Ice, 10, 8 York Street, and open up views along York Street towards the water.

2) Ground Plan.
a) Take the podium to the ground.
b) Re-examine the parking.
c) Vehicle turning area should be treated like a hotel port coucher. Nice paving, lighting etc…
d) Canopy can be used to mitigate the wind.

3) Harbour Street.
a) Study what is happening under the podium. The streetwall is not continuous.

4) Tower form.
a) Fully integrate the top of the tower into the design. If the tower is to be that high, then to should be incredible. More robust expression.

5) Tower floor plate.
a) Take the opportunity to express the unique site.

6) Podium.
a) Solid Void relationship in podium should be studied.
7) Overall Image
a) Northern lights – what is the conception of the tower in relation to this?

1.6 Proponents Response
Mr. Wallman thanked the Panel for their feedback.

1.7 Vote of Support/Non-Support
The Chair then asked the Panel for a vote of support or non-support for the project. The Panel voted in Non-Support of the project.

http://www.waterfrontoronto.ca/uploads/documents/wdrp_minutes_march2012_1.pdf (p. 5-7)

AoD
 
I notice how one panel member stated that a building this height had to be earned, and the architecture should be more spectacular. Bang on. This is what I've been going on about, yet there are a large number of people willing to accept anything, as long as it's tall. Good to see there are people in authority who are requesting architecture a bit more robust than the banal that has been stamped out so far. This will lead others to up the ante, as they say, and hopefully we'll see some spectacular new renders around town.
 
Toronto deserves a nice classy structure here. what ever its hieght ends up to be. but it absolutely (in my opinion) needs to be very unique for this location.
Just saying.
 
Last edited:
How does the panel vote affect the developer's response to this review?

I'm assuming that a vote of support would mean they could go ahead as presented. What's the difference between conditional support as was given to 1 York, and non-support as was given here?
 
ttk77:

3.4.1
The Panel’s recommendations are advisory
The critical input, comments and recommendations of the Panel are not a binding or authoritative (i.e. decision-making) element of a regulatory review process. The Panel will provide recommendations to Waterfront Toronto and, when appropriate, to the City, for consideration in their decision-making process.

3.4.2
The Panel will conduct its reviews within existing regulatory structures
The Panel will carry out its work within the framework of the City’s Official Plan, the Central Waterfront Secondary Plan, Waterfront Toronto’s Precinct Plans as officially adopted, and other governing urban design guidelines and zoning by-laws. Where the Panel disagrees with these policies and regulations it may make formal note of that and recommend that they be changed. However, individual projects are not to be held up pending broader regulatory change, and the Panel will be expected to help achieve the best results within existing constraints.

http://www.waterfrontoronto.ca/desi..._design_review_panel_policies_and_procedures_ (WT DRP by laws, policy, procedures pdf)

Don't forget however that while DRP doesn't have that much power on paper, it does have a lot of "soft power" and can potentially focus negative attention on a project in a heighten area of interest (i.e. the waterfront) if a proponent doesn't address its' concerns. I think the brothers learned first hand how deep that public trust is when it comes to waterfront issues when they tried their end run at the Portlands.

AoD
 
Last edited:
Thanks. Has the review output historically had much of an impact of decision making then?
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top