I believe that the design was bad and the panel has done exactly what they're supposed to do. Hopefully this will lead to an improved proposal when it comes back again.
 
isaidso said:
Another decent building succumbs to the 'Design Dumb Down Panel'. Wider sidewalks are nice, but are they going to move the building on the corner? There's little point in enforcing that unless the whole block has a uniformly wide sidewalk.

Simplify tower expression? Why so we can end up with something they personally like? Reduce density and height to create more livability? I suppose this is defined by these people's personal ideas about what is livable.

I'm just flabbergasted that a small group of people get to dictate to an entire city what designs we get to enjoy. These people have far too much control over the process and their power needs to be severely curtailed.
Click to expand...


great comment, isaidso. spot-on so many points. couldn't agree more.
 
this is great news--that building was beyond horrible. just laughably tragically awful.

note to city:
the last thing Toronto needs is another design build monstrosity from Canderel. they need to hire a real architect.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I have absolutely no problem with the height or density at this location, but as many others have said, the design is really uninspired and stale. I'm glad that this one is being sent back to the drawing board, but I think it's very unlikely that we'll see it handed off to a different architect.
 
I am shocked that people here are against the Design Review Panel making suggestions to architects/developers in our city.

Is our approach to planning imperfect and needs lots of improvement, perhaps an overhaul? I would think so. But I sure as hell don't think we are stringent ENOUGH about the right issues.

Many of you seem to want more development at any cost, without taking the time to slow down and evaluate the design and its long-term impacts on an area. Just know that some of the best, most humane and sustainable developments around the world came from processes that involved stringent planning policies and design review panels. They weren't rushed through a process where approvals were given left, right and centre without evaluating where improvements could be made and when design overhauls were necessary.

Ultimately I am even more shocked that forumers are opposed to the Design Review Panel in THIS instance. This was hardly a design worth cheering on, especially towards ground level and how its podium related to Oddfellow's Hall.
 
Wow! I didn't expect this one to be sent back to Design Review Panel.

The design looked ok to me, just a little bit of a copy from One Bloor.

Still this is a good thing, I guess the City knows, if it's Canderel, its time for the DRP!
 
isaidso

Another decent building succumbs to the 'Design Dumb Down Panel'. Wider sidewalks are nice, but are they going to move the building on the corner? There's little point in enforcing that unless the whole block has a uniformly wide sidewalk.
Click to expand...

Interesting - you lambast the professionals on the DRP, and yet wouldn't hesitate to judge that the building as "decent". On what basis and criteria, pray tell?

Simplify tower expression? Why so we can end up with something they personally like? Reduce density and height to create more livability? I suppose this is defined by these people's personal ideas about what is livable.
Click to expand...

As opposed to the proponent's ideas of what is livable and constitute good design? And no offense, this tower affects the public realm and as such, it is well within the mandate for the representatives of the public to judge.

I'm just flabbergasted that a small group of people get to dictate to an entire city what designs we get to enjoy. These people have far too much control over the process and their power needs to be severely curtailed.
Click to expand...

As opposed to a bunch of skyscraper nerds telling us what (i.e. height) constitute good design?

AoD
 
jje1000 said:
Did you actually look at the image included in the pdf? The design is awful. I think your overeagerness for more development drives blind to the fact that certain designs must be improved (and this one isn't innovative to begin with, simply copying the lines of One Bloor), especially on major streets like Yonge.

And these people on the 'Design Dumb Down Panel' are:
Click to expand...

It's a little naive to think that panels offer a lot of diversity of opinion. People are chosen who re-enforce the views of the panel. They are almost masturbatory in nature. I think your overeagerness of the status quo has blinded you to the fact that the panel has far too much input into the process.

It's still someone's opinion, and a mono-culture like a panel shouldn't be able to dictate to the extent that they do.
 
Last edited:
ThomasJ said:
great comment, isaidso. spot-on so many points. couldn't agree more.
Click to expand...

Thanks. It's astonishing how little criticism is leveled. People treat these people like they are Gods and their word gospel. Our system works because there are many checks and balances. Who's checking these people? No one.

Toronto shouldn't be treated as their own private play pen.
 
Last edited:
It's a little naive to think that panels offer a lot of diversity of opinion. People are chosen who re-enforce the views of the panel. They are almost masturbatory in nature.
Click to expand...

Really? How are members of the DRP "chosen" to reinforce the views of the panel? Give explicit details please? And you seem to confound diversity of opinions with quality in the diversity of opinions - the former isn't equivalent to the latter. Speaking of that...as opposed to the masturbatory nature of the wax-poetic comments on how this project is "decent"?

Who's checking these people? No one.
Click to expand...

Please, familiarize yourself with the mandate and limits of the power of the DRP before you talk about "checks and balances".

AoD
 
Last edited:
isaidso said:
Thanks. It's astonishing how little criticism is leveled. People treat these people like they are Gods and their word gospel. Our system works because there are many checks and balances. Who's checking these people? No one.

Toronto shouldn't be treated as their own private play pen.
Click to expand...

Thanks. It's astonishing how little criticism is levelled against these hack developers and their hack in-house "architects".

People treat bad developers and their bad in-house "architects" like they are Gods and their word gospel.

Our system works because there are many checks and balances--so thank God for entities like the Design Review Panel.

Because Toronto shouldn't be treated as the private play pen of hack developers and their hack in-house "architects".

isaidso said:
It's a little naive to think that panels offer a lot of diversity of opinion. People are chosen who re-enforce the views of the panel. They are almost masturbatory in nature. I think your overeagerness of the status quo has blinded you to the fact that the panel has far too much input into the process.

It's still someone's opinion, and a mono-culture like a panel shouldn't be able to dictate to the extent that they do.
Click to expand...

It's a little naive to think that these kinds of awful developments offer a lot of diversity to the city.

Architects are chosen who re-enforce the bottom-line of a developer who could care less about good design, good architecture or inspired city building. They are almost masturbatory in nature. I think your overeagerness to defend the status quo has blinded you to the fact that these kinds of hack developers have far too much influence in our city.

It's still someone's opinion, and a mono-culture like a bad developer and a bad architect shouldn't be able to dictate to the extent that they do.
 
Any time G&C is involved with a big project it's gonna be the same story: it's going to go to the review panel who are basically going to say "look, this is a bunch of cheap crap and you will have to do better." Then G&C will read the review but not really understand what any of it means. They will cross their eyes and scratch their heads for 20 minutes and say "derp, derp, derp" all confused like, and submit a second, marginally less crappy proposal. Then that second proposal will get built.
 
Last edited:
^Haha nice. I too feel like that's what's going on at firms like G+C.

Let's face it, if the DRP panel actually had the power it should (read: even more), buildings like Aura wouldn't happen at all. That's probably why the DRP nay-saying contingent is so vocal; their thirst for tall towers everywhere(!), even at the cost of memorable and cohesive design, wouldn't be satiated.

Can't let them durn elitist profeshunals at the DRP get in the way of our towers!!
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top