Toronto 1 Yorkville | 183.18m | 58s | Bazis | Rosario Varacalli

I guess this is the old model that was there on the launch of 1 yorkville. I might be wrong.
 
Waterloo_Guy said:
I wonder if that model was made before the new height change, or if this reflects the approved height.
Click to expand...

From the Official Plan
iii) Yonge-Yorkville
Development will be compatible with the heritage buildings, protect views of the Fire hall tower, and minimize shadow impacts on Stollery Park.


The proposed development at 1 Yorkville goes 0-3 on each of the criteria set out in the Official Plan.

Heritage- it makes a mockery of the street level. It resembles the 'New York, New York', casino facade in Vegas.
Fire Hall- the tacky podium engulfs the street but it's unclear what impact it has on the views of the Fire Hall Tower
Shadow- I need to see the study but considering it is taller than 18 Yorkville I assume it casts a shadow on the park (does anyone have a link to the study?)

It is a complete disaster aimed squarely at Non-Occupying-Owners, or 'NOO' with no consideration given to preserving or enhancing the character of the neighborhood.
 
Last edited:
CN Tower said:
From the Official Plan
iii) Yonge-Yorkville
Development will be compatible with the heritage buildings, protect views of the Fire hall tower, and minimize shadow impacts on Stollery Park.


The proposed development at 1 Yorkville goes 0-3 on each of the criteria set out in the Official Plan.

Heritage- it makes a mockery of the street level. It resembles the 'New York, New York', casino facade in Vegas.
Fire Hall- the tacky podium engulfs the street but it's unclear what impact it has on the views of the Fire Hall Tower
Shadow- I need to see the study but considering it is taller than 18 Yorkville I assume it casts a shadow on the park (does anyone have a link to the study?)

It is a complete disaster aimed squarely at Non-Occupying-Owners, or 'NOO' with no consideration given to preserving or enhancing the character of the neighborhood.
Click to expand...

Does any of this matter? What matters is the overall look and feel of the place. A view of the fire hall is something I can live without, and if you want to see it, you can. It will still be there. Cities change and evolve. Old views change as new ones are created.

As for non-occupying owners, that's their own business.
 
CN Tower said:
From the Official Plan
iii) Yonge-Yorkville
Development will be compatible with the heritage buildings, protect views of the Fire hall tower, and minimize shadow impacts on Stollery Park.


The proposed development at 1 Yorkville goes 0-3 on each of the criteria set out in the Official Plan.

Heritage- it makes a mockery of the street level. It resembles the 'New York, New York', casino facade in Vegas.
Fire Hall- the tacky podium engulfs the street but it's unclear what impact it has on the views of the Fire Hall Tower
Shadow- I need to see the study but considering it is taller than 18 Yorkville I assume it casts a shadow on the park (does anyone have a link to the study?)

It is a complete disaster aimed squarely at Non-Occupying-Owners, or 'NOO' with no consideration given to preserving or enhancing the character of the neighborhood.
Click to expand...

Heritage: they are planning on restoring the buildings on Yonge. Not sure how that is a "mockery" or a "facade" of heritage. Do you have a better solution? The planning is good here. It sounds like you have a problem with the architecture, which is fine, but I think the planning is sound.

Fire Hall: It is a heritage vista to see the fire hall tower from Yonge Street along Yorkville. This development will not affect that.

Shadows: I don't know what park you are referring to but it appears there are no new shadows cast on the aforementioned Stollery Park: http://www1.toronto.ca/City Of Toro.../1254 Shadow Study June 10 2014_optimized.pdf

There is more info on the development proposal here.
 
Last edited:
CN Tower said:
Maybe in Waterloo. In Toronto we have an Official Plan.
Click to expand...

Oh man! ZINGER!

Aside from the scale of this proposal (which, at +/- 120m from the busiest subway interchange in the country, is absolutely no issue at all), what do you find so absolutely 'disastrous' about the planning here? It retains the cadence and rhythm of the historic storefronts while giving them a nice bath, it upgrades the paving around the entire site to what appears to be brick, it internalizes loading and servicing, keeping them away from the pedestrian realm, it introduces little new shadow on the park or Jesse Ketchum School, and it sits on a block and in a neighbourhood which will, in short order, undergo massive changes in scale.

You'll have to try a little harder than pithy one-liners about second-tier municipalities (which, by the way, have growth targets and planning challenges all their own) to sway folks around here.
 
ProjectEnd said:
Oh man! ZINGER!

Aside from the scale of this proposal (which, at +/- 120m from the busiest subway interchange in the country, is absolutely no issue at all), what do you find so absolutely 'disastrous' about the planning here? It retains the cadence and rhythm of the historic storefronts while giving them a nice bath, it upgrades the paving around the entire site to what appears to be brick, it internalizes loading and servicing, keeping them away from the pedestrian realm, it introduces little new shadow on the park or Jesse Ketchum School, and it sits on a block and in a neighbourhood which will, in short order, undergo massive changes in scale.

You'll have to try a little harder than pithy one-liners about second-tier municipalities (which, by the way, have growth targets and planning challenges all their own) to sway folks around here.
Click to expand...

PE,

Make no mistake. I don't like your condescending tone.

I just deleted the rest of my post. I honestly think the project is wrong the site and hope it gets rejected. That's all I care to say about it.
 
Last edited:
ProjectEnd said:
Oh man! ZINGER!
You'll have to try a little harder than pithy one-liners about second-tier municipalities (which, by the way, have growth targets and planning challenges all their own) to sway folks around here.
Click to expand...


I really liked your post but am perplexed as to why you thought his comment was pithy.

As for this project, I like it except it's too short by about 10 storeys. As for anyone worried about this building being out of context, soon it won't be and all the short ones east of Bay will be. Will those same people be consistent and call for them to be replaced by tall buildings to fit in with the "context?" It seems like some want "Yorkville" (neighbourhood) east of Bay to remain the graveyard of activity it is today. Some of us just want it to actually become a true part of an expanded Yorkville.
 
Uptowner said:
I really liked your post but am perplexed as to why you thought his comment was pithy.
Click to expand...

Hi Uptowner,

My interpretation of CN Tower's comment is: 'We have an Official Plan, you don't,' which is not only wrong, but a "pithy" misunderstanding of the role of planners and planning in the Province of Ontario. Hence my link to Waterloo's own Official Plan.

*CN Tower - In all of this I mean no personal disrespect so please don't interpret any of my words that way. Any rebuttal to what you've said is purely in the context of what you've stated and is in no way intended to be construed as 'condescending.' Please Don't feel any need to delete any part of a previous post on my or anyones' behalf as UrbanToronto is as a place where ideas are freely shared and fairly weighed.
 
CN Tower said:
I honestly think the project is wrong the site and hope it gets rejected.
Click to expand...

sir I have no idea why you hate this project so much, from the day it was proposed? believe me it is a nice tower and it will look good once it goes up and im sure you will like it too. :)
 
I know its a bit off topic but the other day I was googled 1 Yorkville and was looking at some renders and saw a picture of gran casino Barcelona and the tower resembles 1 Yorkville. the tower on left. what do you guys think?
imagesCA6Z0AZJ.jpg


http://www.google.ca/imgres?imgurl=...act=rc&uact=3&dur=387&page=3&start=35&ndsp=21
 

Attachments

  • imagesCA6Z0AZJ.jpg
    imagesCA6Z0AZJ.jpg
    7.2 KB · Views: 1,132
This design reminds me quite a bit of the original design for 10 york, which basically was a box with a play on the facade. I remember a lot of people preferred that box to the current design of 10 york. I don't understand the hate on this tower when so many people enjoyed that box. Personally, I would hope these fins make a large enough difference so that it takes away from the fact that it is just a box.
 
CN Tower said:
Maybe in Waterloo. In Toronto we have an Official Plan.
Click to expand...

Wow, not only was that an uncalled for ad hominem, but it was wrong. Double awesome. Two thumbs up.

With your fear of height near an intersection with tall buildings I'd think you were the one from Kitchener.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top