Adjei
Senior Member
The gall of this DRP to ask for a redesign from this project which stands out from the cap we see being built, while they have watched all these glass boxes go up all over the city.
Toronto KING Toronto | 57.6m | 16s | Westbank | Bjarke Ingels Group
- Thread starter Ziggy
- Start date
maestro
Senior Member
That's one of the cons of a DRPs. They create a subliminal set of parameters to which every project adheres to and developers eventually figure it out. See Vancouver's homogeneous skyline. That said, I myself have concerns with this project in regards to massing, scale (width), and heritage retention that extends beyond just the pretty architecture.
smably
Senior Member
Do we have an official name and construction window for this project? From Allied's press release on the acquisition of 461 King:
I guess the design does kind of look like a crown...
(from the architectural plans sent to the city)
I guess the design does kind of look like a crown...
(from the architectural plans sent to the city)
Attachments
ADRM
Senior Member
I find the DRP's critical commentary on the supposed lack of privacy arising from the design of the terraces, frankly, obtuse. There's no planning-based/city-building harm to that element of the design, and if the market will bear that particular design element then the market will bear it. That seems well outside their purview, to me - that strikes me as the type of conversation that should (and, I imagine did) occur between developer and designer, not in the DRP forum.
stjames2queenwest
Senior Member
I'm sorry, I am trying really hard to take the minutes as constructive criticism but I just don't agree. I also don't like how they claim to speak for Torontonians - they are simply speaking for themselves.
I like this project, I am glad to hear that it is not being redesigned.
I like this project, I am glad to hear that it is not being redesigned.
Josh
Active Member
The DRP’s comments were all reasonable - I’m happy they exist. If we left design review to forum members - all buildings in the city would be 1000 storeys tall, with 1m separation distances, and they would all have crazy shapes. Asking BIG to comply with the cities tower separation distance of 25m is not an act of hate, nor is asking for a courtyard to actually get some sun. Alas, people want to give more respect to the man who’s website is big.dick than many of the cities most respected architects.
stjames2queenwest
Senior Member
Give this much power to any small group of people respected or not, and some people are bound to disagree with their decisions once in awhile. It has nothing to do with lack of respect for the city's "best" it just means people have different opinions, and some people like this design.
put a bunch of people who are used to being critiqued on a panel together, of course they are going to then critique others. That's their job, I get it.
put a bunch of people who are used to being critiqued on a panel together, of course they are going to then critique others. That's their job, I get it.
maestro
Senior Member
Some people's opinion have more value than others based on their education and experiences. The alternative is anarchy or robots.
Josh
Active Member
Most of this isn't even an 'opinion'. Trees need sunlight to grow - though some big egos here will fight to prove the opposite. So much silliness.
Lumber King
New Member
Since we are on the aspect of talking about whether trees can grow or not without sun-light. I think this should be helpful.
Attachments
Last edited:
Momin
Senior Member
This project was mentioned in our roundup: Cluster of Boutique Projects Planned for Wellington Street Block
smably
Senior Member
Nice article about Westbank + BIG in Archinect with a few mentions of this project.
http://archinect.com/features/artic...er-that-appreciates-the-value-of-architecture
Includes this juicy tidbit:
I know of this project, 19 Duncan, and Mirvish Village. I wonder what else they're planning.
http://archinect.com/features/artic...er-that-appreciates-the-value-of-architecture
Includes this juicy tidbit:
I know of this project, 19 Duncan, and Mirvish Village. I wonder what else they're planning.
G.L.17
Senior Member
ADRM
Senior Member
The latest public consultation was held last night at Metro Hall, and it was standing room only. The proponents presented a revised plan, having taken under consideration initial feedback from Planning and the DRP. This was the first time Planning had seen this round of revisions.
I have some crummy photos from the back of the room; it'll be difficult for folks to divine much from them, so I'll sketch some of the changes after a brief summary of how the meeting unfolded. In all, the essence of the project remains intact, and there were some interesting and significant additions. Some will feel that an element of the uniqueness of the project has been lost in this round, as was expressed by community members at the meeting, but I don't think it went too far in that direction.
I haven't been to a community consultation in this city where the public comments at the end of the presentations were as overwhelmingly positive, supportive, and downright thankful of the proponents' work. I think about a dozen people spoke, half of whom started simply by thanking the architect and developer(s) for putting together such an exciting project. Not a single person spoke out against it.
It was clear listening to both the city planner who is in charge and from the proponents that there is a not-insignificant gulf between the two parties. This chasm was obvious enough that a number of the community members who spoke actually chastised Planning for their perceived rigidity. Planning is very hung up on: 1) The amount of heritage retention - despite the fact that this iteration includes a significant increase in heritage components compared to the first round; 2) The overall height - the planner said the requested 16 stories is "much too high" for the neighbourhood; and 3) The current scale of setbacks.
My personal opinion is that each of those demands is overly rigid and unreasonable given the changes included in this iteration. I left a consultation as frustrated with Planning as I have been (and I'm generally sympathetic to the demands placed on the department).
Here are very grainy versions of the updated boards:
This one illustrates the two most significant changes to the site (or at least the two that the proponents spent the most time on): First, the "cut-through laneway", as they're calling it, that extends all the way from King through the building unencumbered to Wellington - there will be courtyard-facing retail and a local art program on the walls; and second, new public greenspace that ties the courtyard from the building through to Wellington, which will be designed by Claude Cormier. This is formerly the site of the infamous C Lounge and has been purchased by Allied for the purpose of creating this public space.
Below, you can see the changes in massing - basically, a reduction in the number and "severity" of the "peaks", along with the pulling back of the building to create the cut-through. You can also see two new heritage elements: The addition of a newly-preserved heritage building, on the southeast corner of the site, which is slated for "community programming" of some sort, and a new treatment of the King-fronting heritage buildings. The latter entails a "reveal" of the roofs of the heritage buildingS - that is, there will be some "blank space" between the tops of the old building and the bottom of the new building; a recessed cantilever of sorts.
Below, previous iteration on the left; current iteration on the right; in the latter, you can clearly see the cut-through.
Below is the new iteration, King frontage.
Below, courtyard-facing retail.
I have some crummy photos from the back of the room; it'll be difficult for folks to divine much from them, so I'll sketch some of the changes after a brief summary of how the meeting unfolded. In all, the essence of the project remains intact, and there were some interesting and significant additions. Some will feel that an element of the uniqueness of the project has been lost in this round, as was expressed by community members at the meeting, but I don't think it went too far in that direction.
I haven't been to a community consultation in this city where the public comments at the end of the presentations were as overwhelmingly positive, supportive, and downright thankful of the proponents' work. I think about a dozen people spoke, half of whom started simply by thanking the architect and developer(s) for putting together such an exciting project. Not a single person spoke out against it.
It was clear listening to both the city planner who is in charge and from the proponents that there is a not-insignificant gulf between the two parties. This chasm was obvious enough that a number of the community members who spoke actually chastised Planning for their perceived rigidity. Planning is very hung up on: 1) The amount of heritage retention - despite the fact that this iteration includes a significant increase in heritage components compared to the first round; 2) The overall height - the planner said the requested 16 stories is "much too high" for the neighbourhood; and 3) The current scale of setbacks.
My personal opinion is that each of those demands is overly rigid and unreasonable given the changes included in this iteration. I left a consultation as frustrated with Planning as I have been (and I'm generally sympathetic to the demands placed on the department).
Here are very grainy versions of the updated boards:
This one illustrates the two most significant changes to the site (or at least the two that the proponents spent the most time on): First, the "cut-through laneway", as they're calling it, that extends all the way from King through the building unencumbered to Wellington - there will be courtyard-facing retail and a local art program on the walls; and second, new public greenspace that ties the courtyard from the building through to Wellington, which will be designed by Claude Cormier. This is formerly the site of the infamous C Lounge and has been purchased by Allied for the purpose of creating this public space.
Below, you can see the changes in massing - basically, a reduction in the number and "severity" of the "peaks", along with the pulling back of the building to create the cut-through. You can also see two new heritage elements: The addition of a newly-preserved heritage building, on the southeast corner of the site, which is slated for "community programming" of some sort, and a new treatment of the King-fronting heritage buildings. The latter entails a "reveal" of the roofs of the heritage buildingS - that is, there will be some "blank space" between the tops of the old building and the bottom of the new building; a recessed cantilever of sorts.
Below, previous iteration on the left; current iteration on the right; in the latter, you can clearly see the cut-through.
Below is the new iteration, King frontage.
Below, courtyard-facing retail.
Attachments
stjames2queenwest
Senior Member
Thanks for that.