Toronto Ïce Condominiums at York Centre | 234.07m | 67s | Lanterra | a—A

I love it! I can't wait to see the renderings of the towers, and then eventually to see it get built! I think the green roofed canopy is a wonderful Idea.... I noticed on the model though... no balconies! what a wonderful idea! ( i doubt that this will be the case once the project is actually announced/sold/built.. but one can dream!
 
I'm liking it. It'll be interesting to see the way that the trees shoot up from beneath and reveal themselves above the 'podium' structure - when viewed from above. Perhaps a nice shading effect will occur for people walking beneath. Also, I'm liking how those circles appear to have some opacity to them. Perhaps they're glass or similar? The reservations I've had about the podium section have just gone out the window :) Great work aA!
 
marcus_a_j said:
The awnings on the Met are better than most on Bay or elsewhere that are supported by pillars, but not the best. They do not extend too far from the building and there is too much of a gap between each pane of glass which negates some of the weather protection. The awnings at John Frank Place on Dundas between Jarvis and Bond are a better example.

Pillars create unnecessary obstacles along the sidewalks. Pedestrians already have to deal with newspaper boxes, bus shelters (not that they're bad), utility poles, parking meters, garbage/recycling boxes, etc. Thankfully the awnings on TLS do not have pillars and I find those one to be ok as well.
Click to expand...

IIRC, the pillared, setback overhang walkway that proliferates most of the developments on Bay Street is actually a requirement in the zoning bylaw ... (correct me if I'm wrong)
 
Well I'll be the nay-sayer - I don't like it.

The "podium" seems to be nothing more that a giant awning around the base of the towers. There is no streetwall. It's basically "towers in the park" with an awning over the park.
 
299 bloor call control. said:
IIRC, the pillared, setback overhang walkway that proliferates most of the developments on Bay Street is actually a requirement in the zoning bylaw ... (correct me if I'm wrong)
Click to expand...

I recall the same thing, maybe we both read the same article (Hume maybe?) or someone with more knowledge as to the specifics of this stretch might have said the same thing. Will Murano have retail at the base and have the same style awnings?
 
marcus_a_j said:
The awnings on the Met are better than most on Bay or elsewhere that are supported by pillars, but not the best. They do not extend too far from the building and there is too much of a gap between each pane of glass which negates some of the weather protection. The awnings at John Frank Place on Dundas between Jarvis and Bond are a better example.
Click to expand...
Those aren't bad, but I don't think they're any better than the ones at the Met. If you look at the most successful pedestrian streets, whether it's Queen St in Toronto or King St in Cobourg, there's hardly any weather protection to be found. Individual stores often have awnings, usually they're made of cloth and they're retractable. They aren't continuous at all, but that's obviously doesn't stop people from spending time on those streets. IMO, weather protection is completely unnecessary and long arcades can do more harm than good.
 
Glad to hear most agree with me on these arcades/overhangings, and some great additional points are made.

One is the small size of the retail being incorporated into Toronto's new buildings; they are almost destined to be fast food outlets and drycleaners. Where are the two story, flush-to-the-street spaces that are attractive to national and international retailers, as well as local restauranteurs?

Specific to this project, I believe this area has the potential to be the Union Square of Toronto: a nice green space anchored by the Roundhouse, close to the financial core, lots of sporting and cultural activity,reasaonably high end but not outrageous residential, close to a major transit hub. When I lived in NYC, heading to Union Square on a nice spring day after work was great: thousands of people drinking, dining and shopping. Unfortunately, podiums like that of the existing building on Bremner (Optima?) do not bode well. The sparce retail already in that building looks like it's hiding, not welcoming potential patrons.

Also, does anyone find it ironic that the city is encouraging these arcades for weather-protection, yet have committed to LRT over Subway development? In February, I'd rather wait for a train underground than up on the street!
 
I think I'm missing something......everyone is so excited about this "model" but it looks short and squat to me.....I thought this was supposed to be high towers and these don't look like what the thread has been about....what did I miss?
 
Dane: 16 York will have balconies. They are similar to those on the next two phases of the Distillery District in that they undulate and create an Absolute-ish effect.

ceaz40: My shots were of the Podium model. The heights are still set at 157, 174 and 216m for the single office and dual residential towers respectively (this includes mechanical).
 
ceaz40 said:
I think I'm missing something......everyone is so excited about this "model" but it looks short and squat to me.....I thought this was supposed to be high towers and these don't look like what the thread has been about....what did I miss?
Click to expand...

If you notice, they've lopped off all the towers so you focus on the ground floor on this model, and not the towers... The boxes on top of the 'towers' are actually the elevator shafts.
 
The whole neon-green part of the model will be planted with a mix of wild grasses and other low-lying, low-maintenence vegitation, if that's what you mean.
 
It's different. But I'm not sure I like it. What's going to be under this podium? Just lots of concrete? That'd be terrible!
 
Exactly. This picture of a roof of a podium raises all sorts of questions as to what exactly the podium will be like.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top