DtTO said:
You say that as if it means something. It's the same reason an old, rusting train shed was given "heritage designation," because preservationists have diluted the system with buildings that really aren't special or worthy of saving, thus lowering the value of all buildings under that designation.
Click to expand...

Just because YOU feel it means nothing, doesn't mean it does. A lot of research goes on behind the scenes to determine if a building is worthy of preservation status. It's not a simple blanket term that gets tossed around like you think it does. Not everything is worth saving, and the process buildings go through to determine their status is not a simple one.

This is why we often lose so many buildings to the wrecking ball before they are designated. The process is lengthy and takes a lot of effort.
 
I'm a little sad that we'll be losing the view of One Bloor East from along Bloor. Along with the podium it would have made for an iconic view terminus for Bloor Street shopping, along with the ROM in the other direction. I believe I would have traded it for the original exoskeleton design but I'm not sure the replacement is as interesting?
 
I really like this development.

That said, when a building moves ahead before approved by council then they take the risk. If the proposal is denied they should be forced by the city to bring in another proposal or immediately replace the buildings they tore down. In other words, when a developer tears down a building they really should be a law that the site can only stay vacant for a certain period of time. The One Bloor East site was vacant forever and was a complete blight on the famous corner.

If a developer want to take his chances on tearing everything down on the assumption that their proposal is approved and it's not then they should be forced to build on the site something complete within one year regardless if it is at a loss.
 
ssiguy2 said:
That said, when a building moves ahead before approved by council then they take the risk. If the proposal is denied they should be forced by the city to bring in another proposal or immediately replace the buildings they tore down. In other words, when a developer tears down a building they really should be a law that the site can only stay vacant for a certain period of time. The One Bloor East site was vacant forever and was a complete blight on the famous corner.

If a developer want to take his chances on tearing everything down on the assumption that their proposal is approved and it's not then they should be forced to build on the site something complete within one year regardless if it is at a loss.
Click to expand...

That is pretty well impossible... when the previous proposal on the 1BE site went side-ways one of the part landowners was the Lehman Brothers who went bankrupt during the global financial crisis in 2008. How would one force a bankrupt company... let alone any company that does not have project financing in place to build something? It is difficult enough to obtain financing for projects that have approvals and have strong sales line-up. Land development is a very complex and often non-linear process - things go wrong.
 
On a completely different note - Foster admirers may be interested in a previously unpublicized Foster design for 217 West 57th street (that was not actually selected as the final design - Adrian Smith + Gordon Gill were ultimate selected to design what will be the tallest residential tower in the U.S.). The NYC Foster proposal certainly shares some design language with the preliminary drawings that have been released for the 1BW site.

http://ny.curbed.com/archives/2015/...assive_57th_street_tower_looked_like_this.php
 
Yes, but far more successful at the crown, from what I can tell. It really does reference NYC vernacular deco. Nice.
 
Is this a new rendering? I can't recall seeing it before:
DL-0815-condos-theone-2.jpg


(via)
 
Am I correct to assume that the residential entrance/sky lobby has been moved to the Yonge Street side, above the heritage buildings? I guess it makes sense in that it maximizes the amount of retail facing Bloor, which probably commands the highest rent...

Or maybe it's just been pulled back from the street a bit and is hidden behind the main tower?
 
Nice renders. The brick left on the north wall of the heritage building really contextualizes the old built form community here and its depth, both literally and figuratively. Facades can maintain that idea of community, but keeping that wall is a really fine gesture on Foster's part. That connection to the past keeps us grounded and reminds us of where the city has been and the building above reminds how far we've come.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top