cant understand why any rational architect would think that this alternate massing achieves anything better than the original

Screenshot 2023-10-30 at 2.53.06 PM.png


Screenshot 2023-10-30 at 2.53.38 PM.png

Screenshot 2023-10-30 at 2.54.21 PM.png

Screenshot 2023-10-30 at 2.52.27 PM.png
 
V unfortunate that this ended up with Aspen Ridge / Core... Not a team I really trust to execute anything half decent. I'm expecting lots of oil canned black metal panels and pale grey spandrel ala Galleria
 
It looks so ugly that another protest is required.

Also anyone opposed to the height of the building? It feels so out of place for the Canary District neighbourhood.
 
blitzraj1 said:
It looks so ugly that another protest is required.

Also anyone opposed to the height of the building? It feels so out of place for the Canary District neighbourhood.
Click to expand...

As planned, the whole site will be badly overbuilt, but Aspen Ridge has claimed they are required to build to the heights in the MZO.

I think part of the reason nobody is satisfied with the plans is that they're trying to put too much on a small site with heritage components. There are only so many ways you can divide up 95 storeys of building.
 
everydayhim said:
cant understand why any rational architect would think that this alternate massing achieves anything better than the original

View attachment 516623

View attachment 516624
View attachment 516625
View attachment 516626
Click to expand...
I'm no architect, but I'd think anyone who appreciates landmarks like the OCAD tabletop and even the fantastic lobby/atrium of the Entertainment One building at Richmond and Peter would see huge opportunity for eye-catching architecture in this overhang of Building B along Palace St. And the larger consolidated courtyard space provides much more flexibility for quality public realm programming, compared to the fractured space of the current massing, .
 
malowitzki said:
I'm no architect, but I'd think anyone who appreciates landmarks like the OCAD tabletop and even the fantastic lobby/atrium of the Entertainment One building at Richmond and Peter would see huge opportunity for eye-catching architecture in this overhang of Building B along Palace St. And the larger consolidated courtyard space provides much more flexibility for quality public realm programming, compared to the fractured space of the current massing, .
Click to expand...
sure there's 'potential' but architecture cannot be looked at through such a simple lens. there are far too many considerations in how a building comes to be and the stakes involved, and in certain cases, some outweigh others and determine what kind of building we end up with. Some of these considerations:

- this is not going to be world class architecture, its a condo intended to attract investors and renters
- this is not a good architect with a proven track record of superior buildings
- this is a budget developer that has not done great buildings in the past and got this site through a shady deal
- this is not a budget heavy project
- this proposal is not cantilevered, its pilotis'd, this is a tremedous difference
- this proposed massing overhangs far too much on a site that will be starved for sunlight with three towers on it, and covers the only proposed open space with sunlight, in shade
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top