Northern Light
Superstar
We had most of the docs already from the previous link.
But this one is now live in the AIC:
* link not working*
But this one is now live in the AIC:
* link not working*
Last edited:
Toronto 38-50 Park Road | 107.9m | 31s | Helberg | Chipperfield + BDPQ
- Thread starter Northern Light
- Start date
beepboop
New Member
The quality of David Chipperfield’s work is so fantastic and not-gimmicky that using “starchitect” feels wrong to me because I usually reserve that term as a pejorative for Libeskinds — architects whose brand drove the architecture instead of the other way around. That people are considering this design “bland” based on the renderings tells me more about their own aesthetic preferences than it does about the quality of the firm. Their work is disciplined and detail oriented.
I think the challenge on this site for any architect would be how to integrate an existing building that was designed to be a pavilion in a ravine. By its very nature it wants to be standalone and separate. And that’s where the architectural/historical value becomes very difficult to do justice. I think they did fine considering the client mandate of adding density to the site and the pavilion still reads as a separate mass.
I think the challenge on this site for any architect would be how to integrate an existing building that was designed to be a pavilion in a ravine. By its very nature it wants to be standalone and separate. And that’s where the architectural/historical value becomes very difficult to do justice. I think they did fine considering the client mandate of adding density to the site and the pavilion still reads as a separate mass.
Last edited:
A Torontonian Now
Senior Member
The existing buildings, today:
AptCommunity
New Member
The developers were a joke at the community input meeting. Someone asked them if they were thinking of turning the former OAA headquarters into a retail space and the guy who answered gave a very long winded answer just to say … yes, they are considering retail in the OAA building.
No one had any answers about the traffic disaster that would ensue from construction on Park Road, which is how so many people in the city get to the Don Valley Parkway.
They also had no answers about the long-term traffic from having so many more apartments and retail, etc., and basically no driveway. People kept asking about that, and the developers said that there will be only one loading spot for close to 300 apartments. As someone who lives there now, I can tell you that we have multiple people sometimes doing drop offs, deliveries, wheelchair taxis etc, and we use the full driveway for that. I can’t imagine our current building having only one loading spot let a building eight times the size. It feels like although the developers aren’t saying this explicitly, they’re basically going to use Park Road itself as a driveway for the bigger apartment building so they can increase the footprint of the new building.
In their presentation, they were also weirdly nonspecific about what David Chipperfield’s actual role in this. The whole thing is really strange and feels very fake.
No one had any answers about the traffic disaster that would ensue from construction on Park Road, which is how so many people in the city get to the Don Valley Parkway.
They also had no answers about the long-term traffic from having so many more apartments and retail, etc., and basically no driveway. People kept asking about that, and the developers said that there will be only one loading spot for close to 300 apartments. As someone who lives there now, I can tell you that we have multiple people sometimes doing drop offs, deliveries, wheelchair taxis etc, and we use the full driveway for that. I can’t imagine our current building having only one loading spot let a building eight times the size. It feels like although the developers aren’t saying this explicitly, they’re basically going to use Park Road itself as a driveway for the bigger apartment building so they can increase the footprint of the new building.
In their presentation, they were also weirdly nonspecific about what David Chipperfield’s actual role in this. The whole thing is really strange and feels very fake.
Northern Light
Superstar
This one is the subject of a Refusal Report to the next meeting of TEYCC:
Summary from above:
Summary from above:
Amare
Senior Member
Lol ok so we're not ok with appropriate 30 story intensification in the Downtown Core limits within a 3 min walk of 2 subway lines, but we've got no problem with similar 30+ story proposals in transit deserts in the inner suburbs, with absolutely no precedents in the given area.
I mean what come again?
I mean what come again?
Koops65
Senior Member
Wow, I thought everyone "liked" this one... but clearly I was wrong.
AptCommunity
New Member
This is a separate thing from the refusal … but I was confused by something in the application. The developers’ own geotechnical survey said that the soil is not suitable for a high-rise building. Is that a common, solvable issue? How would they build a high rise on a slope if the soil isn’t suitable? Our current mid-rise building (40 Park) sits partially on concrete pillars. If they also incorporated 38 Park, then the incline would be even steeper. I’m curious about how the engineering of this works.
AlexBozikovic
Active Member
Toronto: If You Live In A House, This City Belongs To You
Northern Light
Superstar
The juxtaposition above is certainly jarring enough and I wouldn't defend it where applicable.
I would say, this site is complicated by being on a slope, within/adjacent to both a ravine and parks, it tears down an existing multi-storey rental, it wasn't thought of as a site for this sort of intensification in the OP........
That does not mean its not supportable, just so we're clear.........but its not quite as cut and dry as you make out.
Also...........ahem, the councillor, ahem.
Northern Light
Superstar
I'm looking at the Geo-Tech now.
Let me bring forward some material, I will then add comments:
**
****
Comments: Geo-Tech is not my area of expertise, but I have read a few of these over the years. I would read this to include certain key features.
The near-surface soils include high composition of fill (construction and/or regular landfill, not natural soils), followed by a very sandy/silty layer which is not appropriate to a hirise foundation base.
But the report also identifies the preliminary solution* Which is deep-foundation caissons down to bedrock/stable soils.
Its not unbuildable by any means, but there is added cost, and there is an uncertainty factor. That emerges from the fact no boreholes could be drilled directly where the existing buildings are standing, and further testing would be required post-demolition.
But, the results from said testing obviously cannot be known until the existing property is vacated and demolished. Its extremely unlikely any further testing would render a hirise unbuildable here, but it may result in more complex engineering, including, conceivable removal of of some of the existing fill, with backfilling then required, and there may be issues other issues that could emerge.
I would read the report as 'viable, but with above-average costs, and some risk premium.
AptCommunity
New Member
Thanks so much for this explanation
Msleylar
Active Member
Anything is possible, its a matter of time and money!