fouronesix makes the point that the short/tall relationships between National Club/Trump and Campbell House/Canada Life is disanalagous to the Royal Alex block/Theatre Park situation under discussion - because we're dealing with single, isolated buildings in those cases. That's true, but I don't think it disproves the idea that such contrasts can work. Indeed, if a single low-rise building can hold its own under those rather zany circumstances, then the short/tall relationship that exists between the collective of buildings on the north side of King and Theatre Park must be considered as perfectly viable, too.

What I've been stressing in this thread is the idea that visual relationships between buildings change - depending on how close or far you are from the pairings.

For instance, from the intersection of Bay and Queen's Quay the ROCP condo looms up dramatically behind the campanile of Old City Hall, dwarfing it. But as you walk north on Bay, ROCP becomes increasingly less evident and Old City hall more so until ( somewhere north of King ) ROCP becomes a secondary element in the line of sight. Similarly, seen from the Quay, the Brookfield Place towers exist only in relationship to the other tall towers around them, and the cluster of historic facades at their base is invisible. But when you walk north to Yonge and Wellington, the towers are foreshortened because you're nearer to their bases and the historic facades are now visible and have a collective 'heft' that more than matches the towers. The Distillery is another example of this effect - the tower(s) signpost the district from afar, yet the visual heft of the heritage buildings and aA's condo podium are finally experienced when you're up close and they ( not the condo ) form the majority of the visual component when you're walking around there. Alklay makes the point, after seeing the new renderings, that "It certainly overpowers the Royal Alex (and at the very least, draws your eyes upwards and away)" but the Royal Alex doesn't even stand out particularly strongly against the other older buildings on the north side of King - in fact, it is probably the least forthcoming of them all. The new tower will signpost it.
 
Last edited:
And a point about heritage structures and rising property values. While the particularities of heritage designation are certainly not my forte, I think Adam Vaughn's concerns over rising land values creating economic conditions for redevelopment of heritage properties are valid. As far as I know, there is nothing to prevent the owner of a heritage property from willfully neglecting a property to the point that it becomes structurally unsound and in need of demolition.

Then cap taxes in this district as was done for Queen. Here's what Vaughan said about redeveloping Duke's Cycle etc. courtesy Glen from the Duke's thread:

http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2009/ex/bgrd/backgroundfile-22235.pdf

Otherwise, the city should get out of the way! This building is proposed for a vacant lot a two minute walk from one of our only subways. We can't not build transit and protect heritage and cap heights. Pick one!
 
This tower in NYC seems to work well with it's low rise neighbours. I imagine that Theatre Park would as well. It's a pretty bold tower by Toronto standards. I hope it gets built as rendered.
 

Attachments

  • 1263336684_madpk1.jpg
    1263336684_madpk1.jpg
    44.7 KB · Views: 270
  • JBR_Building_02.JPG.jpg
    JBR_Building_02.JPG.jpg
    8 KB · Views: 241
  • 3405101327_9a358e0d31_b-vi.jpg
    3405101327_9a358e0d31_b-vi.jpg
    80 KB · Views: 245
I'm not quite sure about all the rave reviews for the design of this tower. Apart from being slender, I do not find it all that striking. In addition, the lattice around the mech box looks tacked on and silly in the rendering. I suppose it all depends on the execution, but it reminds me of the walkway near the Canada Centre building at Scarborough City Centre (see photo). I have a love/hate relationship with this example.

CanadaCentre.jpg

Image from tobuilt.ca
 
I suggested this a few pages back, a smaller live venue in the "Theatre District" with condos and amenities above seems to make sense to me.

I wouldn't be surprised to a see such a solution given that Dancap is in desperate need of its own theatre, not to mention the second coming of Drabinsky...

Still, this site seems rather small for even a Broadway-sized commercial house and I doubt that the Mirvishes would want a competitor so close at hand.
 
Funny how the majority of people here are praising the building when we know Brad Lamb can't be trusted to produce great work.

Looks like too many people have short memories. I could have sworn there were multiple posts blasting his build quality.

Perfect example
IMG_july-08-09-0004.jpg


At least Glasshouse can blend in being only a midrise. Last thing I'd like to see is 45 stories of his crap. I'm all for architecture and boldness but when we know there's a 75% chance he'll cheap out on the execution and materials, I think the cities made a good decision.
 
20.17 according to the staff report.

That is unbelievably dense! I have no problem with a 45 story tower, but an FSI of 20 is just ridiculous. Can anyone name a development that has gone up in the city in the last 10 years with an FSI over 10 even?
 
I'll answer my own question - the latest proposal that went to council for Aura, which was rejected, had an FSI of 15. I imagine it's the same as what is being built now.
 
That is unbelievably dense! I have no problem with a 45 story tower, but an FSI of 20 is just ridiculous. Can anyone name a development that has gone up in the city in the last 10 years with an FSI over 10 even?

Residences at the RCMI FSI is* 38.06
* edit - will be, since it's approved but not yet built
 
Last edited:
Funny how the majority of people here are praising the building when we know Brad Lamb can't be trusted to produce great work.

Looks like too many people have short memories. I could have sworn there were multiple posts blasting his build quality.

Agreed. A tower built with Home Depot materials will cheapen the block. I think we'll deeply regret this in 10-20 years. Material quality is a far more important concern in this case than height.
 
I think Brad Lamb was only the RE agent for the glasshouse (picture shown above), unless he's trying to distance himself from them.


According to his site
, his list of completed developments in Toronto include East Lofts, Glas, 169 lofts on John St.
 
I wouldn't be surprised to a see such a solution given that Dancap is in desperate need of its own theatre, not to mention the second coming of Drabinsky...

Dancap has another site in mind at the moment...
 
That is unbelievably dense! I have no problem with a 45 story tower, but an FSI of 20 is just ridiculous. Can anyone name a development that has gone up in the city in the last 10 years with an FSI over 10 even?

Over 10? Plenty: Uptown, Crystal Blue, RCMI, Museum House, Trump, the former 1 Bloor proposal, Spire, 56 Blue Jays, Barcelona (on Widmer)... and probably many others.

Out of curiosity why does density matter so much? Would it be better if they bought up the property next to them and then built a new surface parking lot beside the tower to cut the FSI in half?
 
Last edited:
What happens at street level is the most important element. 45 storeys on Pearl Street is not going to do anything to the Royal Alex.
 

Back
Top