condovo
Senior Member
Too reminiscent of 1 Bloor IMO. Also, I'm not sold on two towers for this site. One, 100+ storey tower seems like a better solution to me.
Toronto 2 Carlton | 251.1m | 73s | Northam | IBI Group
- Thread starter ProjectEnd
- Start date
Lenser
Senior Member
A single, beefier, taller tower without a podium - that I'd like to see. I like the design language I'm seeing here but I dislike the tandem heights and claustrophobic spacing - all of it awkwardly perched on that splintered podium.
Northern Light
Superstar
The podium is gross. Not the most sophisticated commentary I've managed, but one that makes clear, in summation what i think.
Doesn't make any sense whatsoever.
The towers aren't bad.............but I'm not blown away.
On balance, leave that thing there that I don't care for............ LOL
Someone will come up with a better reason to tear it down, this is not that.
adma
Superstar
Actually, generically speaking, eye-grabbing tall/supertall densification is probably the *best* alibi for replacement: go big or go home, IOW. Otherwise, if it's just going to be something humdrum of more or less the same scale or a titch larger (much less a total reclad/remodel a la the Westbury), why bother. Stick with what's there and bow to the appreciative defence team; it's a sensible, prudent, and disarmingly positive path to follow. And brush aside those who reflect the Dunning-Kruger school of architectural appreciation.
WislaHD
Superstar
I'm with most people here, impressed but not convinced.
I think you hit the nail on the head. This is what would be best!
I think you hit the nail on the head. This is what would be best!
Mongo
Senior Member
I agree with the majority of people posting here. Ditch the podium, and go with a taller, thicker single tower (keep the tower facade/balcony design though, I rather like it).
The two-tower designs that we see so many of, must have better economics. (Less floor plate area devoted to elevators?) But if given a choice between a taller single tower and rejection, I expect that the developers would go with the option that still gives them some profit, if less than they were hoping for.
The two-tower designs that we see so many of, must have better economics. (Less floor plate area devoted to elevators?) But if given a choice between a taller single tower and rejection, I expect that the developers would go with the option that still gives them some profit, if less than they were hoping for.
maestro
Senior Member
One wide 72 storey has a higher percentage of sellable area than two but, you need to sell a lot more units upfront and it takes a lot more money to build it than two towers than can be phased.
Again, I wouldn't view this submission as an owner actively looking to redevelop their property. This was submitted out of concern that the proposed changes to the zoning bylaw won't allow them to redevelop with a tall tower here.
Again, I wouldn't view this submission as an owner actively looking to redevelop their property. This was submitted out of concern that the proposed changes to the zoning bylaw won't allow them to redevelop with a tall tower here.
steveve
Senior Member
It is a nice design, with potential (adjustments to the scale of the podium and separation between the buildings), that being said, I don't feel like this is right for the site. I do believe this will end up being consolidated into a single, taller proposal.
ptbotrmpfn
Senior Member
great towers.. Don't change them to much please.. Kinda interesting but kinda not. But it's a no doubt easy one to get built here. Cause it's just ok.
Last edited by a moderator:
ADRM
Senior Member
The NIMBYs are gonna have a FIELD DAY with this one. Gird your loins in advance of the first public hearing, proponent.
I'm all for 100+ stories and no podium here (subject to findings of servicing/wind/shadow studies and whatnot), but that feels like anathema to our planners and to our design guidelines, with which I am becoming increasingly frustrated.
I'm all for 100+ stories and no podium here (subject to findings of servicing/wind/shadow studies and whatnot), but that feels like anathema to our planners and to our design guidelines, with which I am becoming increasingly frustrated.
Bayer
Senior Member
I love tall buildings and I would hope for something exceptional on that corner, but from a purely practical point of view, I am so sick of elevator problems that I am no longer interested in living on a high floor. The cheapening that often seems to occur in this city is not limited to building envelopes - it extends to all systems, including elevators. (A friend of mine lives in a once-celebrated condo in the St. Lawrence area where they have serious plumbing problems - to the point where the actual plumbing does not conform to the plans.)
Lenser
Senior Member
Yeah, the elevator thing is a serious drawback for myself as well. For that very reason I'm more interested in looking at mid-rise builds and interesting retrofits of existing warehouse stock.
mgl
Active Member
I'm not opposed to redevelopment of this site but this looks like something that was done in a couple of hours so they could get something in before the guidelines are done. The podium is amateurish.
I'm not opposed to two towers but is this site actually large enough? Don't you need 25m between towers? I know these towers look thin but what's the point if they're too thin?
I'm not opposed to two towers but is this site actually large enough? Don't you need 25m between towers? I know these towers look thin but what's the point if they're too thin?
ProjectEnd
Superstar
Those who guessed IBI would be correct. Hurrah.
