Toronto 1200 Bay (retail tenant fitout) | Tiffany & Co

concrete_and_light said:
I like Mike Layton a lot but I have no idea why he thinks the City can control this kind of thing over time — what the skyline was supposed to look like was very different in the past and it will be very different in the future.

Fast forward 20-30 years or more and the entire plan will be disrupted in new unforeseen ways, unless he thinks the city is just going to stop growing. Of course some degree of control over where density goes is good to try to do in order to plan and build the city in human-friendly and sustainable ways, but the argument that this shouldn't happen because it messes with the intended skyline peak at Yonge & Bloor, which is just a hop, skip, and a jump away from this site isn't a good argument and it distracts from and undermines the more relevant issues with this development, making it seem like opposition to the project is just superficial reactionary anti-height defensiveness. Even though I agree in a way that the skyline would be more aesthetically appealing if the height peak were at Yonge & Bloor — it's just unrealistic and counterproductive IMO to try to over-control these types of things over time.

That said, this development might not make sense for other reasons (separation distance, the environmental cost of tearing down an already large concrete structure, etc.) and opposition to the project should focus on those rather than what the skyline "should" look like. And above all else I hope it doesn't happen because the architecture currently on the site is irreplaceable, beautiful, and endangered and it should be preserved and protected.
Click to expand...
Hi Concrete and light, the current building is one of my favourites in the city as well. If they could propose this elsewhere and I'm sure the structural engineers wouldn't mind another 25 feet of width to work with.😉
 
Last edited:
The Preservationist said:
Ah yes, marketing material often triggers me, the unrealistic promise and what you get.... besides structurally speaking I wonder how long those wooden window blinds will work over the decades. 🤔
Click to expand...

Hey we're getting entire buildings made of wood ;).

And to be fair, the blinds are "*exterior timber roller shades + an outer layer of transparent, open-jointed glass." so they are well-protected.

At least that's what the blinds supplier (with the politically incorrect brand name) thinks.

1534675_0x500.jpg

The Blindman
​
P.S. *I know you know they weren't gonna be exposed to the elements, you know.
 
concrete_and_light said:
IEven though I agree in a way that the skyline would be more aesthetically appealing if the height peak were at Yonge & Bloor — it's just unrealistic and counterproductive IMO to try to over-control these types of things over time
Click to expand...

^ agreed. It's not like The Bay and CIBC, our original height peak at Yonge & Bloor, was protected by anyone... we got over that One... twice.
 
3Dementia said:
^ agreed. It's not like The Bay and CIBC, our original height peak at Yonge & Bloor, was protected by anyone... we got over that One... twice.
Click to expand...
Minus the new smoke stack condos I prefer the NYC skyline with everything in the mix. More cosmopolitan. That being said if there remains some smaller local character streetscape buildings preserved where one can dip in to for a coffee, meal or favourite beverage really adds to the experience. I guess to problem is without height limits everyone is going to build tall.
 
Hard to match NYC given our missing ESB and Chrysler typology (our Bank of Commerce gem is pretty much hidden), but we have a couple of nabes like the market where we have a beautiful mix of historical/mid-rise/retail/public realm, with a perfect touch of a bit of height (75 The Esplanade). Much of east of Church is looking very promising too.
 
3Dementia said:
Hard to match NYC given our missing ESB and Chrysler typology (our Bank of Commerce gem is pretty much hidden), but we have a couple of nabes like the market where we have a beautiful mix of historical/mid-rise/retail/public realm, with a perfect touch of a bit of height (75 The Esplanade). Much of east of Church is looking very promising too.
Click to expand...
True, ESB and Chrysler are my two world favourites, in which order now there's a debate! As for this one the structural modelling guys have there work cut out for themselves with wind loading. Despite not wanting to loose current building I'm going to be very interested so see how these guys pull this one off per artist's illustrations and economics. I'll get off my soapbox.
 
Last edited:
in 100 years there will be a new style of building in vogue and all the buildings we had built today will be seen like similar to how people see ESB and Chrysler today - as how architecture was done in the past.
 
Ciarlandini said:
Globe and Mail- nice and early.
Click to expand...

That's quite the love letter... bordering on "advertorial" not editorial. ;)

But this scraper geek welcomes necessary propaganda in most forms.
 
Interesting to see Keesmaat supporting it, or at least her quotes are being used in that way in the article.

Seems strange to also have no discussion of the separation distance issues with its neighbour and how it interacts with that other proposal which seems to be perhaps the biggest issue facing this development regardless of whether it's a good idea or not on its own. At least from my knowledge from reading this thread, but perhaps I'm wrong. The lack of discussion of that aspect though is odd and amplifies that bordering on advertorial feeling.

If this building does happen I do hope it is done as well as the developers describe it, although I fear their words are just fancy words for "glass/spandrel condowall". The details will make or break, and I hope they succeed if it does get built because it's a big price to lose the architecture of the building currently on site.
 
concrete_and_light said:
Interesting to see Keesmaat supporting it, or at least her quotes are being used in that way in the article.
Click to expand...
Like her, I'm supportive of it too. I just don't think there's an ice cube chance in Hell it will be built...at least to that height. Perhaps she also feels the same way about that too.
 
UtakataNoAnnex said:
. I just don't think there's an ice cube chance in Hell it will be built...at least to that height..
Click to expand...
Don't know about that?...37 million in section 37 funds. and a couple other perks got The One 309 meters, maybe 50 million gets this its 327 meters?
, after all money talks and bullshit walks with the current city council
 
Why would she support it? Just because it's located next to transit doesn't mean it has to be this tall. She, of all people, should know this and that the proximity to 80 Bloor is terrible.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top