Northern Light

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
May 20, 2007
Messages
15,710
Reaction score
32,214
The only potential upside here, in terms of architecture, is that the clients and architects have shown some creativity and willingness to… try. The weird “erosion” around Falconer Hall was driven by heritage constraints.

The big question is how much more time and money U of T is willing to spend.

I would truly rather it was none; in the sense that I think this project should be nixed.
Its was a potentially great building, it was/is in the completely wrong spot.
There really does not appear to me to be a way to square that circle.

It just doesn't work.

I think they over paid for the site, just like the developer before them did, with completely unreasonable expectations.

I don't think the project is salvageable.

The original building design, or something close, can be shifted to west campus, south of Harbord, there are plenty of spaces there do a profound re-think, with ample room for intensification.

The site beside Falconer is just not suited to this degree of intensification.

*****

On a separate, but related note, I think the space occupied by the planetarium should actually be back in ROM's hands.
Providing ROM could develop and execute a proper vision as an institution.
They actually need the space to the museum they should be.
But that is not the museum they are now.
 

ProjectEnd

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
May 28, 2007
Messages
11,592
Reaction score
21,534
The only potential upside here, in terms of architecture, is that the clients and architects have shown some creativity and willingness to… try. The weird “erosion” around Falconer Hall was driven by heritage constraints.

The big question is how much more time and money U of T is willing to spend.
U of T needs this building. Space constraints in a number of departments are pushing this so there's no chance it wont happen. But yes, money and time are constant worries.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Northern Light

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
May 20, 2007
Messages
15,710
Reaction score
32,214
U of T needs this building. Space constraints in a number of departments are pushing this so there's no chance it wont happen. But yes, money and time are constant worries.

Not disagreeing at all..........but

Worth saying U of T has a very large portfolio of properties already at their disposal. Some would be unpopular to alter...but I digress.

Beyond the on-campus opportunities, they control the former TDSB lands on the south side of College; they have the building at Bloor/Bedford, among other very close sites.

500 University is part of the portfolio now, UHN is deeply tied to the University, and the Federated colleges, especially Vic have additional key properties fronting Bloor.

They also do have some cash at their disposal for further acquisition; though I imagine they would like to stick to campus wherever possible.

There are still a few sites from the 4 corners strategy that don't have a proposal yet.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sjb

AlexBozikovic

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Aug 14, 2011
Messages
470
Reaction score
1,909

Because this is the middle of downtown Toronto.

Broadly, the argument here from the city and then various neighbours was: This site is part of a district with a historic character that is mostly lowrise and partly residential. That’s selective at best, ahistorical at worst. The Park Plaza is 16? storeys tall and was built in the 1930s. Why does “history” stop at 1929?
 
Last edited:

Northern Light

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
May 20, 2007
Messages
15,710
Reaction score
32,214
Because this is the middle of downtown Toronto.

Broadly, the argument here from the city and then various neighbours was: This site is part of a district with a historic character that is mostly lowrise and partly residential. That’s selective at best, ahistorical at worst. The Park Plaza is 16? storeys tall and was built in the 1930s. Why does “history” stop at 1929?

Bad argument.

This proposal is not to next to the Park Hyatt.

It's next to the ROM - 4 storeys

Falconer Hall - 3 storeys

and the

Faculty of Music. - 3 storeys (* somewhat taller than typical for the number of storeys)

*******

Most recent nearby new build is Jackman Law - 3 storeys
Directly across the street is Emanuelle College - 3 storeys
That allows for a correct assessment of context.

Pushing the height up gently is probably defensible, but that would be 5 storeys.
The issue here is also the footprint which is simply too large for the space.
 
Last edited:

Sjb

New Member
Member Bio
Joined
Aug 1, 2021
Messages
17
Reaction score
13
Because this is the middle of downtown Toronto.

Broadly, the argument here from the city and then various neighbours was: This site is part of a district with a historic character that is mostly lowrise and partly residential. That’s selective at best, ahistorical at worst. The Park Plaza is 16? storeys tall and was built in the 1930s. Why does “history” stop at 1929?

Architecture is supposed to be about context. The context of this site, is low-rise. It simply IS. You can't refute it. I can see this site from my home, and there are no high-rise buildings within 50ft of this site.
 

Sjb

New Member
Member Bio
Joined
Aug 1, 2021
Messages
17
Reaction score
13
Because this is the middle of downtown Toronto.

Broadly, the argument here from the city and then various neighbours was: This site is part of a district with a historic character that is mostly lowrise and partly residential. That’s selective at best, ahistorical at worst. The Park Plaza is 16? storeys tall and was built in the 1930s. Why does “history” stop at 1929?
History doesn't stop at 1929, it stops at Bloor Street. There's a wall of taller buildings enclosing the low-risk campus, which is subject to the UToronto Secondary Plan. That plan itself proposed maintaining the historic low-rise character of the area.
 

saynotofaux

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Oct 11, 2011
Messages
210
Reaction score
373
Architecture is supposed to be about context. The context of this site, is low-rise. It simply IS. You can't refute it. I can see this site from my home, and there are no high-rise buildings within 50ft of this site.

lol 50ft. You do realize that context is more than just what exists immediately adjacent, right? Look at what exists within 250 metres of this site and then tell me what the existing context is. Can you refute that this context does not already include tall buildings? This property has been designated as a development site, through the University of Toronto St. George Secondary Plan, since 1997. It is a tower site, period.
 

Sjb

New Member
Member Bio
Joined
Aug 1, 2021
Messages
17
Reaction score
13
lol 50ft. You do realize that context is more than just what exists immediately adjacent, right? Look at what exists within 250 metres of this site and then tell me what the existing context is. Can you refute that this context does not already include tall buildings? This property has been designated as a development site, through the University of Toronto St. George Secondary Plan, since 1997. It is a tower site, period.
No, it isn't. Hence whey they're not building a tower. Checkmate.
 

saynotofaux

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Oct 11, 2011
Messages
210
Reaction score
373
Nor does yours. *shrug*. But also, Park Hyatt is 300m (900 ft) away from the site. Within 250 m, there are no highrises.
Exhibit, Museum House and Park Hyatt are all within 250 metres of this site. You can use a simple measuring tool on Google Maps to see that for yourself. Anyways, I'm not engaging further here because your comments are not rooted in reality.
 

Sjb

New Member
Member Bio
Joined
Aug 1, 2021
Messages
17
Reaction score
13
2021-08-03_12-36-11.jpg
 

Top