Toronto Atrium on Bay Expansion | 114m | 34s | KingSett Capital | Hariri Pontarini

Designing a building around a mediocre-at-best media tower seems kind of dumb to me. Also, I wish the new high-rise would draw on the design language of Atrium or, in turn, the existing Atrium would be re-worked to draw on the design language of the new high-rise. Right now, there's no visual relationship between the two. They just happen to share the same podium.
 
Worked in this building. Kinda surprised they are considering this and wondering who would lease these floors. Probably the worst building I have worked in, the floors are old. There's still ashtrays in the bathroom back when you could smoke indoors and they are carpeted (gross). It's far from Union meaning most commuters had to take the TTC from Union which is an inconvenience compared to the buildings closer in the PATH and the amount of crazy homeless people that hang out in the building makes it feel sketchy. Add to that the perfect suicide style atrium. Many days co-workers would jokingly look over and comment how the building is perfect for someone to jump after a bad day at the office. Was never a fan.
 
Why is 302 Yonge St (the little 2-storey box on the NW corner of Yonge & Dundas) a designated heritage building? It's featureless and unremarkable, and -- most significantly -- an impediment to developing and improving this major intersection. The whole intersection, including Dundas Square, is one of the ugliest, least functional and unsatisfying spots in the city. It could be and should be so much better.
 
Townie said:
Why is 302 Yonge St (the little 2-storey box on the NW corner of Yonge & Dundas) a designated heritage building? It's featureless and unremarkable, and -- most significantly -- an impediment to developing and improving this major intersection. The whole intersection, including Dundas Square, is one of the ugliest, least functional and unsatisfying spots in the city. It could be and should be so much better.
Click to expand...
Because maybe it's nice to have some actual heritage in this city instead of endlessly trying to maximise land value to make wealthy developers more wealthy?

Plus, given this location (YDS), and the lack of effort that's been put into basically every project facing it, anything that replaces it would likely be worse.
 
Townie said:
Why is 302 Yonge St (the little 2-storey box on the NW corner of Yonge & Dundas) a designated heritage building? It's featureless and unremarkable, and -- most significantly -- an impediment to developing and improving this major intersection. The whole intersection, including Dundas Square, is one of the ugliest, least functional and unsatisfying spots in the city. It could be and should be so much better.
Click to expand...

I am afraid the few heritage structures at the corner isn't the reason why this intersection is the ugliest and least functional spots in the city - it is pretty much the result of everything built in the last two decades.

AoD
 
I guess Kingsett doesn't own the small building with the tower on it (Foot Locker?),
but will be getting air rights over top of it?

If Kingsett owns that building, it should just demo the tower and incorporate new billbards into the facade of the new tower.
 
officedweller said:
I guess Kingsett doesn't own the small building with the tower on it (Foot Locker?),
but will be getting air rights over top of it?

If Kingsett owns that building, it should just demo the tower and incorporate new billbards into the facade of the new tower.
Click to expand...
Footlocker is part of Atrium (it has an internal entrance on the lower level across from the LCBO), so this is about them wanting to keep at least space for the media tower (although maybe that will be replaced with a new model, who knows). 302 Yonge has a wrap around LED screen on top and might have a different owner, but the media tower is on top of part of Atrium itself.
 
This is peak Toronto in all the worst ways.
I am sort of surprised/disappointed HPA would even take this on... I guess that's the least offensive thing about it, though.
 
Yes, get rid of the media tower and slap the ads etc on the side of a new building.

That aside, while this design is decent and handsome...it seems like a design that is out of place in this area of town. It seems too...well, quiet. The corner demands something a little more bold (funky? unusual? loud?). It just seems like this design is more suited to a quieter, more conservative neighbourhood.

Just my gut instinct when I saw the design.
 
alklay said:
Yes, get rid of the media tower and slap the ads etc on the side of a new building.

That aside, while this design is decent and handsome...it seems like a design that is out of place in this area of town. It seems too...well, quiet. The corner demands something a little more bold (funky? unusual? loud?). It just seems like this design is more suited to a quieter, more conservative neighbourhood.

Just my gut instinct when I saw the design.
Click to expand...
It would be nice if the tower in some way reflected the design of the original building. This is just like, a pleasant but bland condo tower.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top