Big Daddy said:
At the risk of repeating an obvious example. the Mirvish proposal took quite a beating - a good defense is a strong offence.
Click to expand...

It is a beating he would have gotten even if he decide to go the route of the OMB directly - and besides, the context is hardly the same - we aren't talking about an entire row of high quality heritage structures, an extant theatre and the corner of a major intersection with two subway lines with a 75s under construction right opposite to the site there.

Tewder said:
Be that as it may, Toronto's built realm is largely 'polite', which is to say safe, inoffensive, designed by committee... and i'm not sure that art or excellence thrives in these conditions. So yeah, maybe it takes a strong personality to create something extraordinary? I am glad we err on the side of caution, overall, but caution didn't build our NPS or CN Tower, and it likely won't build M/G or the One... all of which is to say that maybe we should hitch ourselves to a visionary every once and a while, even if it does cause us some discomfort.
Click to expand...

There is nothing particularly impolite about this building - even the height, while significant, is not that off compared to the ask by surrounding projects. It doesn't take a strong personality to propose something extraordinary - it takes one to see it through and deliver the promised quality, and so far the jury is still out on that.

AoD
 
Last edited:
IIRC, (and I may not - please correct me if my memory is at fault) the site of the present One Bloor East, ie., directly across the street, was originally approved for ca 290 m. in height. The proposed height of The One is about 10% higher than that approved height. That does not seem an outlandish proposal to me and in any case, it would seem difficult to argue that this site should be significantly shorter than that already approved figure. I would not want to have to make that case before the OMB.
 
67Cup said:
IIRC, (and I may not - please correct me if my memory is at fault) the site of the present One Bloor East, ie., directly across the street, was originally approved for ca 290 m. in height. The proposed height of The One is about 10% higher than that approved height. That does not seem an outlandish proposal to me and in any case, it would seem difficult to argue that this site should be significantly shorter than that already approved figure. I would not want to have to make that case before the OMB.
Click to expand...

You are correct.

AoD
 
What? No new posts on this over the last 22 hours?!

Here's more to chew on: our latest front page story, with new images you haven't seen if you missed the event last week.

42
 
Just a note, in the article it says that the status of 784 Yonge St......but I believe you meant to say 774 Yonge St..

Great article though. I love those layouts and the idea of the winter gardens.
 
Benito said:
Just a note, in the article it says that the status of 784 Yonge St......but I believe you meant to say 774 Yonge St..

Great article though. I love those layouts and the idea of the winter gardens.
Click to expand...

It's too bad the vertical circulation elements (elevators, stairs) are still relegated to the core in a rather traditional manner - it would be truly impressive if those elements were moved to the perimeter and made a part of the architecture.

AoD
 
Ok, so the elevators open up into the units on the "higher floors" which have four units in total ... so then the units below will have hallways I'm assuming? How does that work in an 80 storey building with only two sets of elevators.

*edit I had to clarify two sets

I also recently came across this rendering of Yonge... Yikes.

The-One-Yonge-Street-View-BLOG-640x1193.jpg
 

Attachments

  • The-One-Yonge-Street-View-BLOG-640x1193.jpg
    The-One-Yonge-Street-View-BLOG-640x1193.jpg
    923.5 KB · Views: 1,217
Last edited:
Great, so it looks like they'll plant plastic fake trees along Yonge st. Otherwise I can't fathom green leaves in the winter.
 
I really don't associate F+P with garish external ads on what blank walls their project might have - and they have it on *both* sides of the building. I sincerely hope that won't be the case.

AoD
 
AlvinofDiaspar said:
It's too bad the vertical circulation elements (elevators, stairs) are still relegated to the core in a rather traditional manner - it would be truly impressive if those elements were moved to the perimeter and made a part of the architecture.

AoD
Click to expand...

I think they need to be, especially in this type of structure where they want to go 'column free' with open floor plates with the exterior columns bearing most of the load I'm no engineer, but putting the elevators/core concentrated near the centre probably makes the most special sense. But I feel you, putting elevators at one end of a building allowing for windows/glass elevators on any building is a wonderful feature that adds a visual spectacle both from the inside and outside of the building.

The technical elements of this building continue to impress me. The individual sky gardens are great, practical, and make sense. The opening/closing of these boxes also won't interfere with the architecture as well, but would be more of a subtle feature tucked away, inset from the facade. The old 1BE was to have this feature as well.
Does anyone know what other condos in Toronto have this feature? (Or is this a first in a high rise?).

This will be an immensely fun build to watch. Everything from the 35m deep excavation, to the steel X beam construction, all will be a first.
 
steveve said:
I think they need to be, especially in this type of structure where they want to go 'column free' with open floor plates with the exterior columns bearing most of the load I'm no engineer, but putting the elevators/core concentrated near the centre probably makes the most special sense. But I feel you, putting elevators at one end of a building allowing for windows/glass elevators on any building is a wonderful feature that adds a visual spectacle both from the inside and outside of the building.

The technical elements of this building continue to impress me. The individual sky gardens are great, practical, and make sense. The opening/closing of these boxes also won't interfere with the architecture as well, but would be more of a subtle feature tucked away, inset from the facade. The old 1BE was to have this feature as well.
Does anyone know what other condos in Toronto have this feature? (Or is this a first in a high rise?).

This will be an immensely fun build to watch. Everything from the 35m deep excavation, to the steel X beam construction, all will be a first.
Click to expand...

It doesn't have to be depending on how the design is implemented - though a more practical reason for putting these elements inside the floorplate is that they are ultimately not something you'd sell, unlike maximized windows for the units. I could be wrong, but I am not particularly convinced by the column-free floorplate argument for the residential component, given the floors are ultimately interrupted by the elevator and staircase core (and if that was a load-bearing core, the distance between that and the perimeter columns wouldn't appear large enough to require additional columns in-between). I think it has more to do with wanting to avoid a core that goes straight to the ground floor as in more traditional structures to enable the open floorplates for the retail podium.

AoD
 
Benito said:
Just a note, in the article it says that the status of 784 Yonge St......but I believe you meant to say 774 Yonge St..

Great article though. I love those layouts and the idea of the winter gardens.
Click to expand...

Fixed. Thanks!

42
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top