Toronto KING Toronto | 57.6m | 16s | Westbank | Bjarke Ingels Group

ADRM said:
Planners are given latitude to make concessions based on a number of factors, and discretion plays an important role in their jobs. I went to both public consultations for this project and observed Nicholson going out of his way to point out that they wouldn't budge an inch from some of the planning guidelines, to the point where it was noticeably odd; I'd never witnessed that before.

It smacked of an ingrained disdain for starchitecture, not of a planner making best efforts at good planning.
Click to expand...

What is really needed is planning as a matter of professional judgement and sense of artistry, not just rote box-checking.

AoD
 
Last edited:
ADRM said:
Planners are given latitude to make concessions based on a number of factors, and discretion plays an important role in their jobs. I went to both public consultations for this project and observed Nicholson going out of his way to point out that they wouldn't budge an inch from some of the planning guidelines, to the point where it was noticeably odd; I'd never witnessed that before.

It smacked of an ingrained disdain for starchitecture, not of a planner making best efforts at good planning.
Click to expand...

I sensed that in Nicholson's response, the throw-away acknowledgment it was unique followed by essentially negative statements: "The project is certainly unique, but there are differences of opinion as to whether its uniqueness is as substantial an asset as some suggest and whether the project would fit in well on a street as attractive and unique as King Street West".
I think most Torontonians would feel its definitely a substantial asset, and would be very disappointed to discover municipal employees are making personal judgments on our behalf. Thank God for the OMB. A real head scratcher here. Who is that G&M writer who opines on transit and architecture and so forth. He tends tio get to the bottom of things and express 'populist' opinions, which are not always wrong.
 
AlvinofDiaspar said:
What is really needed is planning as a matter of professional judgement and sense of artistry, not just rote box-checking.

AoD
Click to expand...
There is more than one employee in more than one office at Toronto Planning that is against this design in terms of how it meshes with its context—the artistry, as you've characterized it. That's the reason this isn't going anywhere, but Planing is using their beloved tower-and-podium guidelines model to hide behind. I'm not sure that formally giving planners more sway where it comes to artistry would always solve the problems you're identifying.

42
 
interchange42 said:
There is more than one employee in more than one office at Toronto Planning that is against this design in terms of how it meshes with its context—the artistry, as you've characterized it. That's the reason this isn't going anywhere, but Planing is using their beloved tower-and-podium guidelines model to hide behind. I'm not sure that formally giving planners more sway where it comes to artistry would always solve the problems you're identifying.

42
Click to expand...

If everything must mesh with context, then how do cities evolve? Context is important, but variety is important. I'm glad there weren't planners asking whether Chartres Cathedral, the Empire State Building etc, etc were fitting in. This isn't a 50 story glass box, in fact to my eye, it's been designed with context in mind, not slavishly. In fact. it's not tall-at-all.
 
Possible sign of progress...

From the Allied Properties First Quarter report, as of March 31, 2018, these properties have been transferred (for revenue recognition purposes) from being in the Rental Income Properties classification to 'Properties Under Development' On Page 12 of the report:

(1) During Q1 2018, King & Spadina, which is composed of five properties (489 King W, 495 King W, 499 King W, 511-529 King W and 539 King W), was transferred to PUD as one grouping of properties. ​
 
Something's up in the parking lot.

1269FA27-3E67-4DCB-9C14-E8FCEBD8A501.jpeg
A23D4DED-2C57-4064-9633-16C354F64E3B.jpeg


Rather wild, or at least the potential to be. Couldn't be the sales pavilion could it?

42
 

Attachments

  • 1269FA27-3E67-4DCB-9C14-E8FCEBD8A501.jpeg
    1269FA27-3E67-4DCB-9C14-E8FCEBD8A501.jpeg
    195.2 KB · Views: 582
  • A23D4DED-2C57-4064-9633-16C354F64E3B.jpeg
    A23D4DED-2C57-4064-9633-16C354F64E3B.jpeg
    213 KB · Views: 551
It's big, BTW. Bigger than it looks in those photos. Kind of snakes around a bit.

42
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top