they mentioned exploring a 1 tower concept, so the height doesn't seem to be the concern. (the bulk of the massing that comes from 2 towers does seem to be though)
 
AlbertC said:
After reviewing the renderings, I must agree with the DRP decision. Too much cheezy detailing on the towers that already looks instantly dated. It evokes more of flashy Vegas glam than of classy timeliness. Really not feeling the podium design either, which currently appears like a glitzed bunker. Alternate concepts should also be explored to enhance greater pedestrian appeal in that untravelled stretch of Yorkville.
Click to expand...

Must everything be homogenized and stripped of features so as to not upset people's senses? What was nice about this design is that it offered something interesting, but now it seems that's just not allowed. We're not designing a Honda Accord for the masses, or are we? If we do that we'll end up with few interesting buildings.
 
Last edited:
The DRP really liked the podium cladding plan, but they felt that the towers were unrelated to it. I imagine the next version we see will have towers (still two) which relate to the podium better. I also believe that we will see the plans change to include a pedestrian mews along the east side, and a rethinking of the parking entrances. The DRP wants the TPA to drop their demand that the parking be accessed from both Yorkville and Cumberland, but apparently the TPA are pretty intransigent and despite being a child of the City, Council has not shown an appetite to tell them what to do when they act anti-urbanly. It's time the the Toronto Parking Authority be reined in to respect the City's planning vision.

42
 
Personally I don't believe a series of weaving lines on a fairly conventional glass wrap-around tower is really that unique nor the best solution here. There's plenty of alternate motifs to explore when achieving a refined design. Forming greater dialogue between the podium and tower will also help arrange a more articulate composition.
 
Last edited:
interchange42 said:
The DRP really liked the podium cladding plan, but they felt that the towers were unrelated to it.
Click to expand...

So what if the DRP thought the tower design didn't match the podium? They're really over stepping their powers when they start dictating what boils down to personal taste. It's all too authoritarian for my liking.
 
The DRp are trained individuals in the field of design. They are also an advisory body. I see little disadvantage in having this panel. Developers have more than enough leeway to essentially build whatever they want.
 
^ Agreed, it isn't the DRP that's designing and building the dreck we hate around the city, it's developers. Giving the ones building shitty buildings greater leeway isn't going to suddenly make them build better buildings.
 
Are they going to redesign whole buildings or just the podium.
 
Big Daddy said:
I hate to say it but this podium huge and overbearing
Click to expand...

Those are precisely the 2 qualities I seek in a podium. About time! All those light airy apologetic podiums are so tiresome. They look so temporary and lack any presence.
 
Last edited:
isaidso said:
Those are precisely the 2 qualities I seek in a podium. About time!
Click to expand...

That podium has no relation to the area around it or the towers above it, and lacks architectural merit or a contribution to the street. It won't happen.

Also, that's not part of this project. These posts will have to be moved to the thread for this project; I remember it's a Wallman design but I forget the address.
 
SP!RE said:
That podium has no relation to the area around it or the towers above it, and lacks architectural merit or a contribution to the street. It won't happen.

Also, that's not part of this project. These posts will have to be moved to the thread for this project; I remember it's a Wallman design but I forget the address.
Click to expand...

Wouldn't it make more sense to acknowledge what the area is turning into rather than trying to suit a building to what likely won't exist for much longer? I'm not a fan of the driveway, but it's either going on this side or the other.

Lacking in architectural merit? You're entitled to your opinion. That's something I'd say about Burano or Bay-Adelaide, certainly not this one.
 
isaidso:

A strong podium against a main avenue is appropriate - a strong podium on a narrow side street? Not so much - I think 4s is probably ok - anything more is just overbearing and wrongly scaled.

As to architectural merit - this project is probably on par with the two projects you have named - and I am quite certain Bay-Adelaide can claim superior materials and execution given the building type.

AoD
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top