Toronto Clear Spirit | 131.36m | 40s | Cityscape | a—A

Urban Shocker said:

They're not really complementary design opposites, just a newer building shouting at a slightly older one.
Click to expand...

That's what many of us think about the new developments at the Distillery.

I can't help but conclude that simple fear of height is at the core of much of the opposition to what's going down ( or up ) at the Distillery District, couched in talk of how skyscrapers aren't the only way to create density, that these towers are out of context with the neighbourhood, aren't in keeping with the surroundings etc.
Click to expand...

Why do you think it's about a fear of height? Many of us are eager to see the other skyscrapers go up in the city... Shangri-la, RBC, BA Centre, etc. It has no more to do with fear than your concern with the L Tower and its relationship with the Hummingbird Centre... which I also share somewhat. This has nothing to do with fear and everything to do with a desire for smart, aesthetically pleasing planning that takes the environment and context into account.
 
Picture this if you will. The developer only introduced buildings that were balanced in scale with the original structures. How odd would that look? The new buildings would actually be more conflicting if they were sized the same then a few point towers would. You'd also need several more on site taking down more heritage structures in order to bring in the density and amount of units this developer has been granted to construct. The fact these three towers will be so far detached from the Victorian era buildings in size and scale it may actually give the existing structures more of dramatic link into the past. Lets face it, before these are to go up the view from the distillery is(was) of the downtown core, the Gardiner Expressway and and the old Lever plant. Hardly what one would have seen when it was originally built.

I understand how some of you are disgruntal about the fact these should never have been allowed. But they are and since the developers been given permission to ad density should it be many shorter buildings, or a few tall ones? It's going to happen.
 
I took this last December 10th, Wow that went up fast!

PictureorVideo081.jpg
 
Picture this if you will. The developer only introduced buildings that were balanced in scale with the original structures. How odd would that look? The new buildings would actually be more conflicting if they were sized the same then a few point towers would.
Click to expand...

I don't think this is necessarily a convincing argument. There is absolutely nothing that would prevent a well-designed, successful lowrise building from being introduced around the area - even a modernist one. In fact, the podium of this project is already in keeping with the general height levels of the buildings in the vicinity.

The fact these three towers will be so far detached from the Victorian era buildings in size and scale it may actually give the existing structures more of dramatic link into the past.
Click to expand...

Yes, and the concern is that the size of these three towers may also overwhelm the existing structures. These surrounding structures may actually isolate the Distillery area so as to make it look artificial rather than it being noteworthy for its converted usage of existing Victorian factory architecture.

I have no problem with these towers or their design. I actually find them quite attractive. I just happen to think that their proximity to the Distillery District is far too close. Building one tower right within the area is, I think, a serious mistake.
 
The podium is indeed in keeping with the general height levels of the buildings in the vicinity, and the low-rise building that will run along the south end of the site ( anyone have more details of it? ) will be a further such expression: both will visually link the new with the old through matching scale - even going so far as to incorporate recycled brick from lesser structures on the site that will be taken down. But it doesn't follow that all new buildings in the Distillery District should be low-rise. The cluster of tall residential towers will signpost the district, not isolate it - or negate the fact that on paper it is a historically designated former distillery site - helping to relaunch it as something unique. The sympathetic tall/short, brick/glass, new/old design-opposite contrast is how that is achieved.
 
purespirits said:
wow that was quick! yet there is a 5 month delay! strange...
Click to expand...

Not really. The shell goes up quick on any building. It is the digging, the garage and then the finishing touches on the inside that take forever. The building may be topped off (or close to it), but dont expect anyone to be moving in anytime soon.
 
Jdot said:
Not really. The shell goes up quick on any building. It is the digging, the garage and then the finishing touches on the inside that take forever. The building may be topped off (or close to it), but dont expect anyone to be moving in anytime soon.
Click to expand...

Perhaps an odd exception to the rule but let's not forget ROCP 1 began occupancy late last September with an unfinished roof.
 
Urban Shocker said:
Mostly, with the "L" Hummingbird addition, I see an uneasy dialogue between two buildings, with two styles fighting for dominance, not well resolved. They're not really complementary design opposites, just a newer building shouting at a slightly older one.
Click to expand...

I'd have to agree with ganjivah - you've pretty much described how quite a few people feel about the Distillery condo towers.

Urban Shocker said:
I just re-read this whole thread. I can't help but conclude that simple fear of height is at the core of much of the opposition to what's going down ( or up ) at the Distillery District, couched in talk of how skyscrapers aren't the only way to create density, that these towers are out of context with the neighbourhood, aren't in keeping with the surroundings etc. The point is, surely, that this site is a clean slate and these buildings are creating a context to signpost the neighbourhood.

A fascinating discussion, and one of our best threads, I think.
Click to expand...


Come on...that sounds like something Hume would come up with. I don't think anyone here has a fear of heights. The simple fact of the matter is that not every building design is suitable for every area.

If the area was a clean slate then they wouldn't be marketing it based on it's history, nor would it be designated a National Historic Site.

I also have found the developer getting far too much leeway in this thread because of what they've done with the Distillery so far.
 
Urban Shocker said:
The podium is indeed in keeping with the general height levels of the buildings in the vicinity, and the low-rise building that will run along the south end of the site ( anyone have more details of it? ) will be a further such expression: both will visually link the new with the old through matching scale - even going so far as to incorporate recycled brick from lesser structures on the site that will be taken down. But it doesn't follow that all new buildings in the Distillery District should be low-rise. The cluster of tall residential towers will signpost the district, not isolate it - or negate the fact that on paper it is a historically designated former distillery site - helping to relaunch it as something unique. The sympathetic tall/short, brick/glass, new/old design-opposite contrast is how that is achieved.
Click to expand...

I really don't see why the district has to be 'signposted' in the first place. We don't require 40 and 50 storey signposts in every neighbourhood of the city, so why should they be necessary here?
 
Because this isn't "every neighbourhood in the city". As you say, not every building design is suitable for every area.

It is a unique situation that combines a heritage site, years of neglect, the ambitions of a city for a revived portlands and downtown lower east end, and a developer who has already made improvements in a first phase of reviving the site. So it is a clean slate, an empty canvas waiting to be painted on, or whatever you like to call it. And something new is being created from all those elements.
 
"this site is a clean slate"

This is the furthest thing in the city from a 'clean slate' (in fact, you just admitted that this is hardly "every neighbourhood in the city" and that its 'unique').

These buildings encroach on the Distillery as much, if not more so (as there are so many of them) as the "L" does on the Hummingbird Centre - and both cases are to be lamented (despite the praise-worthy designs of the newer buildings themselves).
 
Urban Shocker said:
Because this isn't "every neighbourhood in the city". As you say, not every building design is suitable for every area.

It is a unique situation that combines a heritage site, years of neglect, the ambitions of a city for a revived portlands and downtown lower east end, and a developer who has already made improvements in a first phase of reviving the site. So it is a clean slate, an empty canvas waiting to be painted on, or whatever you like to call it. And something new is being created from all those elements.
Click to expand...

But it isn't a clean slate, as alkay has pointed out. And I'm still not sure why 50 and 40 storey signposts are necessary.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top