Toronto 970 Kipling Avenue | 145.3m | 43s | Kilmer | Hariri Pontarini

[interchange42]

There's something wrong with this rendering:

The proposal is shown simply too short compared to the existing and other proposed buildings around it. If its north-south-east-west coords are all correct though, how do you end up with something that's looking about a third shorter than it should? Rendering experts weigh in maybe? There's no way there'll be a "You must be shorter than this line to ride/live here" sign on this building IRL, so how have they botched this so badly in Renderland?

42

42

 

[Koops65]

Yeah if that's 45 floors, those towers to the left are about 60 - 70 floors... the render is way too short.

 

[GenerationLee]

It seems like they were genuinely shrunken down, not just made more squat in those renders.

 

[FormerTorontonianBackInTO]

@Anthony Teles with a front page story on this one:

Rental Tower Complex Advances as Next Six Points Redevelopment Phase | UrbanToronto

A Zoning By-law Amendment proposes a pair of 28- and 43-storey rental towers at 970 Kipling Avenue in Etobicoke’s Six Points district. The Kilmer Group and CreateTO project would deliver 840 purpose-built rental homes, including 198 affordable units, near Kipling station.

urbantoronto.ca

840 units total, 642 market rent : 198 affordable.

Your renders are here:

View attachment 721385

View attachment 721386

I believe that the courtyard render may be a generic render (not specific to any parcel/block) created by the city, as part of the general rezoning of this area (around Islington and Kipling station) to show how court yards in these blocks could look like. I don't believe it's related to anything put forward/created recently by the Kilmer / Pontarini. I say that because I recall seeing it much earlier in the process, when it was referred to a hypothetical/generic courtyard for this area. As note by others above, the massing in the overhead artist rendering also doesn't seem to match the development context visual posted by Paclo, so I'm not sure how current/accurate that rendering is either.....but I'm guessing that you know a lot more about this project than I do so I wanted to ask whether you knew these to be recent renders (I may need to be corrected)

 

[Northern Light]

I believe that the courtyard render may be a generic render (not specific to any parcel/block) created by the city, as part of the general rezoning of this area (around Islington and Kipling station) to show how court yards in these blocks could look like. I don't believe it's related to anything put forward/created recently by the Kilmer / Pontarini. I say that because I recall seeing it much earlier in the process, when it was referred to a hypothetical/generic courtyard for this area. As note by others above, the massing in the overhead artist rendering also doesn't seem to match the development context visual posted by Paclo, so I'm not sure how current/accurate that rendering is either.....but I'm guessing that you know a lot more about this project than I do so I wanted to ask whether you knew these to be recent renders (I may need to be corrected)

The renders were taken from the UT Front Page story.

I didn't recall seeing the courtyard one in the package, but didn't question it, as it was in the UT story.

 

[UtakataNoAnnex]

...I mean if they shrunk ceiling heights to that of crawl spaces, they could stack a lot floors in any given short tower. /s

 

[innsertnamehere]

There's something wrong with this rendering:

The proposal is shown simply too short compared to the existing and other proposed buildings around it. If its north-south-east-west coords are all correct though, how do you end up with something that's looking about a third shorter than it should? Rendering experts weigh in maybe? There's no way there'll be a "You must be shorter than this line to ride/live here" sign on this building IRL, so how have they botched this so badly in Renderland?

42

42

a rare double 42!

Also - I think they have the scaling off on the site. the underlaying image has Six Points under construction still so it's a bit of a mess and makes it difficult to scale the buildings properly when overlaying them.

Reminds me of this rendering which had the opposite problem, making the building much larger than it actually is because they accidentially included the driveway of the adjacent building in part of the site, oversizing the building:

 

[NY99]

That ground floor… woof. Another case of wide + narrow retail units due to outsized loading facilities. Worse yet, they're planning on making the loading facilities front the pedestrianized old Dundas alignment. Whats the point of that pathway even existing if it’s going to be barren and windswept?

 

[AlexBozikovic]

That ground floor… woof. Another case of wide + narrow retail units due to outsized loading facilities. Worse yet, they're planning on making the loading facilities front the pedestrianized old Dundas alignment. Whats the point of that pathway even existing if it’s going to be barren and windswept?

Exactly this. Plus: why is the retail all oriented toward the main streets, which will be traffic sewers?

Retail streets that aren’t really, and pedestrian passageways that aren’t really. Cars everywhere and oceans of wasted space. Toronto city urban design in a nutshell.

 

[ProjectEnd]

I believe that the courtyard render may be a generic render (not specific to any parcel/block) created by the city, as part of the general rezoning of this area (around Islington and Kipling station) to show how court yards in these blocks could look like. I don't believe it's related to anything put forward/created recently by the Kilmer / Pontarini. I say that because I recall seeing it much earlier in the process, when it was referred to a hypothetical/generic courtyard for this area. As note by others above, the massing in the overhead artist rendering also doesn't seem to match the development context visual posted by Paclo, so I'm not sure how current/accurate that rendering is either.....but I'm guessing that you know a lot more about this project than I do so I wanted to ask whether you knew these to be recent renders (I may need to be corrected)

*Siamak, not David.

 

[ProjectEnd]

Exactly this. Plus: why is the retail all oriented toward the main streets, which will be traffic sewers?

Retail streets that aren’t really, and pedestrian passageways that aren’t really. Cars everywhere and oceans of wasted space. Toronto city urban design in a nutshell.

I mean, it was never going to be that. That's the cute, flowery, - largely meaningless -, conceptual, "charrette" crap the City does [wastes years on] to get us to this stage where folks are actually plugging things into the blocks. These two sides of planning don't, and never will, talk to one another.

Retail (which will sit unleased for a decade) in the front, garbage and loading in the back. This whole area could have been subdivided and vended off a half decade ago.