wolfewood said:
Seriously... Is it possible that the developer purchased the land these buildings were on to decrease the density of the proposed tower without necessarily aiming to demolish/facadicize these buildings? Cuz I can live with that.
Click to expand...
Hmm?, if anything increase, the density of the proposed tower without having to demolish them
 
The render makes it look like IBI took a list of current architectural cliches and assembled a few at random. Offset masses, check. Multiple types of cladding, check. Those little horizontal inserts between the main boxes, check. The whole effect is clumsy, jarring and inelegant. I know Toronto doesn't deserve anything better than condo genericus, but really, does what's ultimately a cheap mid-rise have to look this awful?
 
What's with the self-hating "doesn't deserve anything"?

42
 
I don't agree that Toronto doesnt deserve better. If anything this huge boom is deserving of better. It's not like we are desperate for development. I do however agree that this looks like a mish mash of other designs. I have no hate for p+s but I don't like this one.
That being said it wwould be good for the area. I hate walking up this stretch from queen to shuter.
 
Last edited:
Automation Gallery said:
Hmm?, if anything increase, the density of the proposed tower without having to demolish them
Click to expand...

Same square footage distributed over a larger site means less overall density. I hope that is the case here. How often does that happen in Toronto though?
 
stjames2queenwest said:
I don't agree that Toronto doesnt deserve better. If anything this huge boom is deserving of better. It's not like we are desperate for development. I do however agree that this looks like a mosh mash of other designs. I have no hate for p+s but I don't like this one.
That being said it wwould be good for the area. I hate walking up this stretch from queen to shuter.
Click to expand...

Crap gets built everywhere. The average design here is not much worse than the average design anywhere with few exceptions.
 
maestro said:
Same square footage distributed over a larger site means less overall density. I hope that is the case here. How often does that happen in Toronto though?
Click to expand...
The City has on several occasions encouraged a developer to buy adjacent properties if they want a particular GFA or massing. King Blue is an example of where that happened, and the developer followed through by purchasing one more (non heritage) building to the east of the original assemblage on King. Sometimes the requests from the City have more to do with preserving a hoped-for tower separation than it does density on the lot itself. One of the sites up on Broadway or Erskine (I forget which) had a corner lot holding out, and for the sake of aesthetics and general good planning, the City urged that developer to pay a little more and get that lot too. They did. (@someMidTowner, do you remember which one that was without me having to search?)

42
 
interchange42 said:
The City has on several occasions encouraged a developer to buy adjacent properties if they want a particular GFA or massing. King Blue is an example of where that happened, and the developer followed through by purchasing one more (non heritage) building to the east of the original assemblage on King. Sometimes the requests from the City have more to do with preserving a hoped-for tower separation than it does density on the lot itself. One of the sites up on Broadway or Erskine (I forget which) had a corner lot holding out, and for the sake of aesthetics and general good planning, the City urged that developer to pay a little more and get that lot too. They did. (@someMidTowner, do you remember which one that was without me having to search?)

42
Click to expand...
That holdout was 93 Broadway at the southeast corner of Redpath and Broadway. Citylights is the development in question!
 
Updated render from the Dev App site. The podium height was increased from 2 to 3 storeys to match the height of the townhouses to the north:
upload_2017-6-27_10-25-12.png


upload_2017-6-27_10-25-49.png
 

Attachments

  • upload_2017-6-27_10-25-12.png
    upload_2017-6-27_10-25-12.png
    673.9 KB · Views: 1,243
  • upload_2017-6-27_10-25-49.png
    upload_2017-6-27_10-25-49.png
    88.3 KB · Views: 973
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top