Toronto 10 St Mary | 197.73m | 60s | Mattamy Homes | a—A

So you mean to tell me that office block on the corner of Yonge/St.Mary isnt going? I'm sorry but that thing needs to bite the dust, it's not bringing anything to the table. Take it down and replace it with something worthwhile.

As for the tower itself, it's mediocre. However if they are planning on using cheap materials, it will be easily washed up.
 
On the contrary, the office building has lovely proportions and with some TLC would be a great example of a tidy mid-century office building that could offer a very desirable type of employment space at this location. I'd hate to see it go. The tower on the other hand is what it is, I guess.
 
New docs and design posted. Still by a—A:



View attachment 340159View attachment 340160

Yes to the restored heritage storefronts, I'm okay with cleaning up the mid-century building, it's no classic, but it's passable, if tidied; though the ground floor retail-inset w/canopy has never really worked and might be worth a re-think.

The tower is, as other have said, rather mediocre............the asymmetrical shifts do not add value. The building projecting out/overhanging at a about a mid-rise height is a negative.
Where the modern retail gains nothing from a the vertical element in the glazing, the tower would really benefit from vertical elements as the balconies tend to make a reasonably tall structure feel squat.

How about we just restore the old bits; and sent the 'new' back for another re-design?
 
Last edited:
Toronto Model 08-09-21 10 St. Mary.png
 
Yes to the restored heritage storefronts, I'm okay with cleaning up the mid-century building, it's no classic, but it's passable, if tidied; though the ground floor retail-inset w/canopy has never really worked and might be worth a re-think.
The modern retail is beyond banal, and an entirely poor fit. Nothing wrong w/the height per se, but if you're going to do over the adjacent properties I'd be inclined to go to 3 identifiable floors not a weird 2.5.
The vertical windows don't work at all in light of abutting properties and context and would somebody give this thing a roofline..........bleh.

The tower is, as other have said, rather mediocre............the asymmetrical shifts do not add value. The building projecting out/overhanging at a about a mid-rise height is a negative.
Where the modern retail gains nothing from a the vertical element in the glazing, the tower would really benefit from vertical elements as the balconies tend to make a reasonably tall structure feel squat.

How about we just restore the old bits; and sent the 'new' back for another re-design?
What 'modern retail'?

Tower is fine architecturally, will be a nice addition, but the resulting units are some of the worst I've seen in awhile. What the hell is going on here?

1628514984168.png


1628515015267.png


Huh????

1628515070170.png
 
What 'modern retail'?

My bad, the grey retail building shown on the previous page is existing, but it was front and centre in the render, so to speak, and I assumed it was part of this build (wrongly)

I have removed reference to same from my post above.

Tower is fine architecturally, will be a nice addition, but the resulting units are some of the worst I've seen in awhile. What the hell is going on here?

View attachment 340267

View attachment 340268

Huh????

View attachment 340269

The layout is a certainly peculiar in spots, but the fact that the subdivision of the units into functional spaces isn't shown leaves even more questions.
 
Tower is fine architecturally, will be a nice addition, but the resulting units are some of the worst I've seen in awhile. What the hell is going on here?

View attachment 340267

View attachment 340268

Huh????

View attachment 340269
I do not mean to defend the snaking walls between the units, other than to say that the indents into some suites and projecting bits from others will represent areas where washrooms and closets have been shoehorned in. Every square foot counts of course (and some people will be paying for uselessly long hallways into their suites, but they are saving scraps of space in other areas with those walls.

If only we could build buildings that weren't so deep, we wouldn't need these crazy crossword-puzzle hallways just to get into the main area of the suite. Shallower units provide longer contact with the common hallways, where that square footage really should be, shared and cost borne by all.

42
 
So you mean to tell me that office block on the corner of Yonge/St.Mary isnt going? I'm sorry but that thing needs to bite the dust, it's not bringing anything to the table. Take it down and replace it with something worthwhile.

As for the tower itself, it's mediocre. However if they are planning on using cheap materials, it will be easily washed up.
The building you’re referring to, while not amazing, is a lot nicer than the disgusting dilapidated boarded up Scientology building directly across on the south side of St Mary. That one needs to be demolished. I think this one could be cleaned up fine.
 
Nice fly by job in the Yorkville area Koops ! You really get to see how many skyscrapers are going to be erected there ! Thanks again !!
 
I do not mean to defend the snaking walls between the units, other than to say that the indents into some suites and projecting bits from others will represent areas where washrooms and closets have been shoehorned in. Every square foot counts of course (and some people will be paying for uselessly long hallways into their suites, but they are saving scraps of space in other areas with those walls.

If only we could build buildings that weren't so deep, we wouldn't need these crazy crossword-puzzle hallways just to get into the main area of the suite. Shallower units provide longer contact with the common hallways, where that square footage really should be, shared and cost borne by all.

42
Looks like they're flowering the units out from the elevator core as opposed to using a longer hallway to connect to the units I've seen with older apartment blocks.
 

Back
Top