Southcore said:
Meanwhile crappy 501 Yonge got unanimous support from the DRP at 52 stories?!?!? This building is closer to the financial district than 501.
Click to expand...

Yes, and when I badmouthed the DRP saying that is is staffed by fools re: their decision on the Massey Tower, some urban planner on Twitter got all hissy and blocked me, saying I had "insulted [his] profession". This only adds to the case.
 
I think some of the members of this forum should actually try to interview some of the people involved in these processes. They'd have a lot more respect for the work that is done in them.

The DRP minutes do hold out some hope that the heritage building will be saved in a future re-design. Fingers crossed...
 
I have a standing bias that I'm more than willing to admit to here, however: I'm not generally a fan of city planners as a matter of course.

In particular, I am fond of Edward Glaeser's ideas. Which I know drives a certain group of urbanists into convulsions.
 
Actually most of the DRP members are architects/landscape architects, not planners. And certainly their comments about the projects are more nuanced than "project x is closer to project y from the CBD" or "it is x stories and y project was approved just down the block".

AoD
 
I quite like how the addition wraps around the existing brick building. The balcony designs also create a pretty interesting effect overall.
 
Parkdalian said:
I think some of the members of this forum should actually try to interview some of the people involved in these processes. They'd have a lot more respect for the work that is done in them.
Click to expand...

Urban planning/architects/DRP: their relationship is incestuous and masterbatory like any industry. Not a great deal of self-criticism seems to occur. The whole thing often comes off as an exercise in validating their already held positions on everything. That's where a lot of the frustration comes from. There's an accepted way of thinking that's rarely challenged.

There isn't any incentive to inject new ideas/opposing views into the discussion either. It's in their interest to have only like minded people making the decisions.
 
Last edited:
isaidso said:
Urban planning/architects/DRP: their relationship is incestuous and masterbatory like any industry. Not a great deal of self-criticism seems to occur. The whole thing often comes off as an exercise in validating their already held positions on everything. That's where a lot of the frustration comes from. There's an accepted way of thinking that's rarely challenged.

There isn't any incentive to inject new ideas/opposing views into the discussion either. It's in their interest to have only like minded people making the decisions.
Click to expand...
I have attended several meetings of both the City DRP and the Waterfront one and I must say I was pleasantly surprised at the level and relevance of the critiques of the buildings being presented. The DRP members do challenge their colleagues who, I think, produce better designs as a result. The minutes of the meetings do not really give one the full 'flavour' of the meeting and I suggest you try to attend a few to see what really happens.
 
isaidso, I have to ask you where you are getting these views.

Architectural culture, for all its pretentiousness, is FILLED with self-criticism and critique of others' work. You can't have much familiarity with the architecture industry if you think it's some sort of incestuous group that defends and insulates itself, because it's quite the contrary.

Yes, I'm sure there are similar architectural values espoused by particular board members, but that's also representative of the industry at large. Certain things fare better in critique and if they can't be defended or explained, they will be shot down. (460 Yonge Street, et. al.) I would argue less that the board is a problem and suggest that stronger architectural concepts are needed because they will fare much better in critique. Don't accept lazy architecture.
 
I think the height is great for the location, but the design, I'm not in love with it. But it could definitely turn out to be a nice building.
 
Application: Building Additions/Alterations Status: Not Started

Location: 20 LOMBARD ST
TORONTO ON M5C 1M1

Ward 28: Toronto Centre-Rosedale

Application#: 13 147833 BLD 00 BA Accepted Date: Apr 10, 2013

Project: Multiple Use/Non Residential Interior Alterations

Description: Proposal for interior alterations to existing vacant space for model suites "Great Gulf" (note: for sales centre see #12-288962).
 
VVVVIP sales in full swing now. Had a look at the floor plans and pricing and it's not bad. Prices around $600-$650 PSF but the most floor plans are actually good, with only one configuration out of the ~20 available plans having an interior bedroom, the rest have a window. Also, many of the suits have very large balconies (some suites like 850 sq ft interior space with a ~500 sq ft balcony, or 500 sq ft plus 300 sq ft balcony). Parking is $60K (I think we are reaching a point where people have to consider if getting a spot is economically viable).

On paper this project is far superior than 365 Church IMO (which did very well), so it'll be interesting to see how this one sells.
 
is this project actually going to have direct access to PATH, or just close by? Marketing materials seem to say easy access, but not 'direct'...
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top