With all the genuine reasons for disappointment in the state of Toronto development, I take stock of the good from time to time to remind myself that laudable things are happening.

In terms of architecture, there are many buildings going up that I am proud to have in my city (excluding proposals):
L Tower, Waterlink, River City, Thompson Residences, Abacus Lofts, Howard Park, Five, Exhibit, Theatre Park, King Charlotte, Picasso, Ice, QWC, 1 Bloor East ... Then there are offices like EY which seem to be really nice as well.

These are just some of the buildings that are substantially complete enough to know will be decent I can think of off the top of my head. It doesn't even include proposals like Massey Tower, East Bayfront, etc that are starting construction. And I am really optimistic about the recent shift in development philosophy and urban planning evinced in proposals like the Honest Ed's site, the former Context King West, the new proposal on Clarence Square and The Well, regardless of the architecture. Augurs very well for the future.

Not only that, but we have Queen's Quay, Corktown Common and a bunch of other improvements that I think are going to significantly change the city for the better (Toronto's turning away from its best asset - the lake - has always been a major point of disappointment for me, and that is set to change. Tthough I am upset that Tory seems to want to keep the Gardiner).

Anyway, if proposals like this and Mirvish-Gehry deliver anything decent, they will be the crowns on a development cycle that seems increasingly promising to me - even though there are plenty of duds thrown in the mix to get down on.
 
Last edited:
Edward Skira said:
Yes the World Trade Centre and many other buildings evolved over time design-wise. But they weren't placing full page ads in the paper promoting a design that would soon change. That's the weird part.
Click to expand...

Yes, that's just it... and the whole Stollery's issue thrown into the mix. It does start to feel a little suspect, but only time will tell.

Bad Bear said:
Seems like people have forgotten the design evolution of iconic buildings like One WTC. Yup, that happened in NYC, first class city and blah blah. Shocker, eh?
Click to expand...


We all understand that a design evolves (we are seeing this with M/G for example), in the end we will be judging on the final outcome. As Junctionist states however we're seeing a lot of fairly banal final outcomes, whether due to execution, inferior materials or design element cut-backs etc... and this 'de-evolution' of design (aka the Cheapening) is an entirely different process than that of the natural design evolution process you describe above.

Anyway, I really liked the original design for the One. I liked the whole scheme of it. It's a little tough to accept that in all likelihood it was but a fantasy exercise used to drum up marketing interest and/or dispatch with Stollery's. I'm willing to like a new design too though. Again, only time will tell.
 
Bad Bear said:
You nailed it.
Seems like people have forgotten the design evolution of iconic buildings like One WTC. Yup, that happened in NYC, first class city and blah blah. Shocker, eh?
Click to expand...

WTC is far more ambitious than every office building built in Toronto in the past 10 years.
 
salsa said:
WTC is far more ambitious than every office building built in Toronto in the past 10 years.
Click to expand...

Mainly by height - and it certainly isn't all that ambitious in that or in terms of design, by world standards. It's basically what a property developer in Toronto would build if they need to make a 100s statement.

AoD
 
AlvinofDiaspar said:
Mainly by height - and it certainly isn't all that ambitious in that or in terms of design, by world standards. It's basically what a property developer in Toronto would build if they need to make a 100s statement.

AoD
Click to expand...

Yeah I agree. It's not the most out-there building by any stretch. It does have a restraint to it though which may be appropriate given the site, there's certainly no lack of symbolism.
 
Tewder said:
Yeah I agree. It's not the most out-there building by any stretch. It does have a restraint to it though which may be appropriate given the site, there's certainly no lack of symbolism.
Click to expand...

OT: That's a rather post-hoc justification considering the far more emotionally laden proposals prior - and how some of the other new WTC towers are far less restrained (say, to add a special frisson in the context of this thread, F+P's WTC 2 sans dramatic structural moves)

Less face it, it's a speculative tower executed in the most risk averse manner demanded by the client (Silverstein/PANYNJ) in an emotionally charged context by the masters of corporate bland (SOM).

Back to The One - as mentioned many posts ago, an expressive structural system is not the norm for most F+P residential projects, and I'd rather see an emphasis on quality materials and execution over X-bracing per se (think of the possibilities of what if they use Apple Store scaled glazing panels, for example).

AoD
 
Last edited:
New front page story up here with a little more detail about what's happening currently planning-wise.

42
 
Aside from the possibly-not-set-in-stone-to-be-possibly-added-later removal of the X beams, I think most of the planning revisions are a step in the right direction. A smaller footprint that limits shadowing and bulkiness, while preserving the heritage facade and the original height should satisfy many. If X beams are added down the line, I think having one column of X's down either side would visually look pretty eye pleasing. Especially when you factor in how slim the tower will be.

@Interchange42: were there skyline renders shown at the actual meeting? or where they just the ones posted showing mostly the ground-level revisions?
 
There were no renderings shown of the building above ground realm at the meeting Steveve.

42
 
Looking at the PATH map, it makes even more sense to acquire the two properties to the west
and connect to Manulife Centre to provide another route to access to the Bloor-Yonge Station.
As currently proposed, it's an inconvenient diversion to access the stores at The One.

16036-53966.jpg

PATH connections in the Bloor-Yorkville area, image courtesy of Mizrahi Developments
http://urbantoronto.ca/news/2015/05/one-flux-plan-evolves-planning-concerns-0
 
I hope we don't see too much change in design. I found The One's initial rendering to be one of the most striking proposals I've seen in years. None of that curvy garbage like Aura, or yawn-worthy One Bloor... it was the real deal IMO.
 
Looking at the PATH map, it makes even more sense to acquire the two properties to the west
and connect to Manulife Centre to provide another route to access to the Bloor-Yonge Station.
As currently proposed, it's an inconvenient diversion to access the stores at The One.
Click to expand...

Why bother having two connection under Bloor. Wouldn't the one to 2 Bloor West suffice? Certainly would be cheaper.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top