picard102
Senior Member
Betteridge's law of headlines...
Toronto The Well | 174.03m | 46s | RioCan | Hariri Pontarini
- Thread starter yyzer
- Start date
Northern Light
Superstar
It's a curious series of takes, both optimistic and pessimistic.
There's this:
After which, Alex suggests the connection is less than obvious
He then offers " There is an uncanny-valley quality here; the buildings feel like a reproduction of some non-specific cityscape."
He also notes the similarity to a development in Belfast, Ireland.
***
From there Alex moves on to his traditional lament, that Toronto must spend 365 days a year in darkness, completely free of trees and flowers, and with everyone suffering anemia and vitamin D deficiency due to lack of sun:
"Three lambent, finely proportioned glass boxes by architectsAlliance line Front Street, while three brick-clad midrises along Wellington Street are by Wallman Architects. (The latter are the real clunkers in this ensemble. Their poorly composed facades step down like Mayan temples, following Toronto city planning’s directives, to avoid shading the nearby street.)"
***
He then, amusing applauds the CCxA design for Wellington, which would not survive if the buildings had Alex' preferred sheer street wall blocking most sunlight.
I like the CCxA design, though I am concerned about some of the tree/plant choices, I'll be interested to see how they perform next season.
***
From there, Alex goes on to slag Riocan for a less than brilliant activation plan for the retail space thus far; he's not wrong on that; and one can hardly ever go wrong slagging Riocan who are cheapskates who lack an ounce of creativity or imagination in their organization.
***
This bit needs to be singled out for a couple of reasons:
1) We need a discussion here about the changes the Ford gov't made to development charges and what the impact would be if a similar development were approved today.
2) 1M for affordable housing is slightly less than what the City spent building 2 modular housing units; or if treated as an endowment with operating funds spinning off, the roughly $40,000 per year one could draw down is just shy
of enough to subsidize 2 rent-geared-to-income units.
The above is certainly not a bad thing; but I'm not sure that 2 units out of 1,700 (in effect, as there are no actual affordable units on site) ought to be seen as reasonable.
***
We later get a reference to Eaton Centre when evaluating the urbanity of the place:
Say what? LOL Zeilder did a great job on Eaton Centre interior, which CF has subsequently molested, but I digress.........
But the exterior facing Yonge was always a colossal fail. CF hasn't improved that any, but TEC's original Yonge facade was as anti-urban as they come.
***
Next Alex digresses to blast the Reform movement of 1970s Toronto, which gave us the St. Lawrence neighbourhood, and a host of benefits in valuing history, sunlight and context. He derides all this and then Riocan for suggesting the development seeks to 'fit in'.
Whether 'The Well' fully succeeds in fitting in is up for debate; but there is absolutely nothing wrong with that goal. One can absolutely build towers and density, while seeking to create the illusion of more human-scaled architecture while making use of more traditional cladding materials such as brick at street level.
That's exactly what reduces nimbyism and allow for greater density is making the perceived negatives of the density disappear.
***
Thereafter Alex wanders in thought again to suggest Toronto unduly limits large development to just a few places.............while I have been a leading support of EHON and certainly agree there ought to be higher as-of-right zoning on major streets, including outside the Avenues...............
I always have something of an allergy to hyperbole.
UT does report on some shorter developments, but the vast majority are midrise or hirise.
Lets look at the development map shall we:
Yup, that looks like density is only permitted in 2 or 3 or 4 dozen spaces doesn't it? Hmmm, or maybe it's a couple of hundred spots? Math is a thing.
****
While I think 'The Well' deserves some plaudits for its more interesting and quality choices architecturally, and CCxA deserves plaudits for Wellington, and I share Alex's allergy to Riocan, and would
love to see more architectural diversity...... I end up feeling the column has a few too many points, some with which I clearly take issue.
There's this:
After which, Alex suggests the connection is less than obvious
He then offers " There is an uncanny-valley quality here; the buildings feel like a reproduction of some non-specific cityscape."
He also notes the similarity to a development in Belfast, Ireland.
***
From there Alex moves on to his traditional lament, that Toronto must spend 365 days a year in darkness, completely free of trees and flowers, and with everyone suffering anemia and vitamin D deficiency due to lack of sun:
"Three lambent, finely proportioned glass boxes by architectsAlliance line Front Street, while three brick-clad midrises along Wellington Street are by Wallman Architects. (The latter are the real clunkers in this ensemble. Their poorly composed facades step down like Mayan temples, following Toronto city planning’s directives, to avoid shading the nearby street.)"
***
He then, amusing applauds the CCxA design for Wellington, which would not survive if the buildings had Alex' preferred sheer street wall blocking most sunlight.
I like the CCxA design, though I am concerned about some of the tree/plant choices, I'll be interested to see how they perform next season.
***
From there, Alex goes on to slag Riocan for a less than brilliant activation plan for the retail space thus far; he's not wrong on that; and one can hardly ever go wrong slagging Riocan who are cheapskates who lack an ounce of creativity or imagination in their organization.
***
This bit needs to be singled out for a couple of reasons:
1) We need a discussion here about the changes the Ford gov't made to development charges and what the impact would be if a similar development were approved today.
2) 1M for affordable housing is slightly less than what the City spent building 2 modular housing units; or if treated as an endowment with operating funds spinning off, the roughly $40,000 per year one could draw down is just shy
of enough to subsidize 2 rent-geared-to-income units.
The above is certainly not a bad thing; but I'm not sure that 2 units out of 1,700 (in effect, as there are no actual affordable units on site) ought to be seen as reasonable.
***
We later get a reference to Eaton Centre when evaluating the urbanity of the place:
Say what? LOL Zeilder did a great job on Eaton Centre interior, which CF has subsequently molested, but I digress.........
But the exterior facing Yonge was always a colossal fail. CF hasn't improved that any, but TEC's original Yonge facade was as anti-urban as they come.
***
Next Alex digresses to blast the Reform movement of 1970s Toronto, which gave us the St. Lawrence neighbourhood, and a host of benefits in valuing history, sunlight and context. He derides all this and then Riocan for suggesting the development seeks to 'fit in'.
Whether 'The Well' fully succeeds in fitting in is up for debate; but there is absolutely nothing wrong with that goal. One can absolutely build towers and density, while seeking to create the illusion of more human-scaled architecture while making use of more traditional cladding materials such as brick at street level.
That's exactly what reduces nimbyism and allow for greater density is making the perceived negatives of the density disappear.
***
Thereafter Alex wanders in thought again to suggest Toronto unduly limits large development to just a few places.............while I have been a leading support of EHON and certainly agree there ought to be higher as-of-right zoning on major streets, including outside the Avenues...............
I always have something of an allergy to hyperbole.
UT does report on some shorter developments, but the vast majority are midrise or hirise.
Lets look at the development map shall we:
Yup, that looks like density is only permitted in 2 or 3 or 4 dozen spaces doesn't it? Hmmm, or maybe it's a couple of hundred spots? Math is a thing.
****
While I think 'The Well' deserves some plaudits for its more interesting and quality choices architecturally, and CCxA deserves plaudits for Wellington, and I share Alex's allergy to Riocan, and would
love to see more architectural diversity...... I end up feeling the column has a few too many points, some with which I clearly take issue.
Last edited:
Northern Light
Superstar
For those on whom the reference above is lost:
From: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge's_law_of_headlines
Parkdalian
Senior Member
I thought the Globe article was fine. It covered all of the bases, and there were a few things I could quibble with but they were overall minor.
I will say that the article's writing has a high level of annoyance with Toronto as a whole that makes it less enjoyable to read. But I suspect that this is part of being a critic of architecture in Toronto. Christopher Hume was constantly complaining about Toronto, too. It's just not my favourite form of criticism - I'd prefer something which seeks to understand rather than just shoots another volley in a political fight about Toronto's urban fabric.
I will say that the article's writing has a high level of annoyance with Toronto as a whole that makes it less enjoyable to read. But I suspect that this is part of being a critic of architecture in Toronto. Christopher Hume was constantly complaining about Toronto, too. It's just not my favourite form of criticism - I'd prefer something which seeks to understand rather than just shoots another volley in a political fight about Toronto's urban fabric.
UtakataNoAnnex
Senior Member
I read the headline as...
PAYWALL!!!
...so comments on the said.article are a little lost on me. Though am I to presume that the tl,dr is that The Well has lots of issues both architecturally and socially, but it's still doable then?
PAYWALL!!!
...so comments on the said.article are a little lost on me. Though am I to presume that the tl,dr is that The Well has lots of issues both architecturally and socially, but it's still doable then?
kotsy
Senior Member
old boy
Senior Member
Well-said. Maybe other cities focus somewhat on being critical on their initiatives, but we just don't hear that much of this in Toronto. We are, after all, " Urban Toronto ". One of the things that we see a lot of here is the "artist" concept of developments which many times disappoints in the built product. I'm delighted when a project surprises, or just delivers.
bilked
Senior Member
toronstruction
New Member
Jan 6
officedweller
Senior Member
... like Pizza Pizza does!
AlexBozikovic
Active Member
There is an argument in my piece (which is deeply rooted in an understanding of, and love for, the city) that I hope will earn some discussion.
1970s Reform thinking was focused on protecting house neighbourhoods - assembled sites and “blockbusting” were the enemy.
That attitude continues to shape Toronto. But it pushes density into relatively few places, which generates megaprojects like this. By avoiding big buildings, Toronto gets huge buildings. Is this good?
1970s Reform thinking was focused on protecting house neighbourhoods - assembled sites and “blockbusting” were the enemy.
That attitude continues to shape Toronto. But it pushes density into relatively few places, which generates megaprojects like this. By avoiding big buildings, Toronto gets huge buildings. Is this good?
Natika33
Active Member
I'm going to vote yes, it's good, because it's more efficient and imo, more exciting. For example, would Enwave be as doable with "big" rather than "mega" projects? We can always slowly build out the low density areas too - indeed the barriers to do so are already coming down.
Last edited:
UtakataNoAnnex
Senior Member
Whispers: Is there any way we can get the font that Mr. Bozikovic uses to be a wee bit smaller, Mr. 42? That's hitting me in face like a 4 by 4 post... >.<
Last edited:
rdaner
Senior Member
Taken 14 January.
hawc
Senior Member
Checked it out today.
Impressive.
Architecturally it seems to be a mish-mash of everything, but it kinda works.
The scope of it is huge. Like it's got to be the biggest architectural undertaking since like the Eaton Centre?
Didn't even see the underground parking.
Impressive.
Architecturally it seems to be a mish-mash of everything, but it kinda works.
The scope of it is huge. Like it's got to be the biggest architectural undertaking since like the Eaton Centre?
Didn't even see the underground parking.
Attachments
Last edited: