Toronto TeaHouse 501 Yonge Condominiums | 170.98m | 52s | Lanterra | a—A

They should get rid of that awkward connector at the podium level and design the two building as if they are separate (noting the differential treatment for the shared podium).

AoD
 
TonyV said:
Probably not worth responding, but I've lived in the area, too, and I think this redesign is the worst effort that the architect and the developer have put forward for this site, to date.

The city should send all parties back for a total rethink. There are many ideas floating around that could turn this into a delightful project.

Lanterra is the problem here, I suspect. The mindset needs a good shakeup, they've got to get out of the rut they're in.

This proposal just isn't good enough.

EDIT: On a more positive note, there are good designs under consideration in Toronto, like below link. I think we can afford to push for quality at Yonge/Alexander, this is an important corner. Not saying that the below design is the answer, but it shows that someone is working at carrying internationalism forward rather than repeat, repeat, repeat.

http://urbantoronto.ca/news/2012/05/sneak-peek-possible-design-cityzenclarion-hotel-sherbourne-bloor
Click to expand...

Big Daddy said:
Geez, AA is really struggling with this one. They can't seem to get any traction in their design efforts. This last one is just a mash-up of various styles and textures - nothing coherent or pleasing about it at all - It's like they're are frustrated and saying "okay then what about this?" Maybe they have been working on it for too long. Perhaps it's time to give another architectural firm a crack at it.
Click to expand...

I agree that this latest iteration is underwhelming but remember that things only really went south after the working group got involved.

This isn't aA's fault - they are given a set of spatial requirements and from that they generate a form. The earliest exercises were exciting and featured stacked boxes, skybridges and other references to other projects in the aA oeuvre. These exercises were never shown at public meetings for a number of reasons, primarily that 'architecture' (or whatever you like to call condo window-dressing) is almost never discussed while height, massing, traffic and parking are always primary sources of contention. So why would Lanterra spend money detailing the design, drawings, visualizations, etc. when none of that will matter anyways? Hence, the 2 x 58s massing studies which got the exact treatment described above.

So again, I blame (at least) the working group for this unfortunate outcome. Design is not a democratic exercise, as much as this City would like it to be. In a brief moment of lucidity, Big Daddy (almost) hit the nail on the head: It's not so much that they've been working on it too long (though a certain amount of project-cabin-fever is inevitable), but that too many people have been working on it. They are almost certainly frustrated. They are almost certainly saying: "okay then what about this?" But can you really blame them? Imagine continually putting months of effort into a project which is constantly changing at the whim of a group of people who likely know little of what they speak? Furthermore, what if you had worked on the project from the (exciting) initial visioning exercises, watching day by day as it slowly loses all of the elements which got you so tumescent in the first place.

At a certain point I'd probably stop caring too.
 
ProjectEnd said:
I agree that this latest iteration is underwhelming but remember that things only really went south after the working group got involved.

This isn't aA's fault - they are given a set of spatial requirements and from that they generate a form. The earliest exercises were exciting and featured stacked boxes, skybridges and other references to other projects in the aA oeuvre. These exercises were never shown at public meetings for a number of reasons, primarily that 'architecture' (or whatever you like to call condo window-dressing) is almost never discussed while height, massing, traffic and parking are always primary sources of contention. So why would Lanterra spend money detailing the design, drawings, visualizations, etc. when none of that will matter anyways? Hence, the 2 x 58s massing studies which got the exact treatment described above.
Click to expand...

I was at one of the initial public meetings for this project and the bland and uninspired nature of the architecture was indeed brought up as an issue. I think that an outstanding architectural design has the potential to garner a little more sympathy from locals. I'd have come out swinging with something really sensational. What they initially put up won no friends from any corners, including the generally development-friendly environs of UT.

While I do partially pin this outcome on the working group process, which necessarily requires balancing the interests of many parties, I also get the sense that aA just threw up their hands and didn't bother trying to do anything interesting. I'd also bet that Lanterra never had any intention of putting up anything other than a couple boxes anyway.
 
Last edited:
Point well taken, pe, and while I understand the optics of assembling a working group, the outcome is the ultimate bad one, punishing everyone - restating that this intersection is a quasi-public space.

Someone has to have some integrity here, and there is no evidence of any such thing, it all looks like throwing one's hands up in the air in exasperation, as you have suggested. The developer stands to make a lot of money on this; they should care more.
 
Ramako said:
I was at one of the initial public meetings for this project and the bland and uninspired nature of the architecture was indeed brought up as an issue. I think that an outstanding architectural design has the potential to garner a little more sympathy from locals. I'd have come out swinging with something really sensational. What they initially put up won no friends from any corners, including the generally development-friendly environs of UT.

While I do partially pin this outcome on the working group process, which necessarily requires balancing the interests of many parties, I also get the sense that aA just threw up their hands and didn't bother trying to do anything interesting. I'd also bet that Lanterra never had any intention of putting up anything other than a couple boxes anyway.
Click to expand...

There are two things I'll bring up in response to this.

The first is that while I agree a stunning 'design' can win people over, you'll recall what happens when the finished product isn't exactly like what was initially shown. On UT we constantly hear of things being 'cheapened' or 'copped out.' I'm not saying this isn't the case when it comes to value engineering - often marketing renderings promise a degree of sleakness which can't possibly be replicated with today's construction economics. This sort of 'cheapening' is however much farther down the line, when a design has been finalized and working and construction drawings are being produced. Recall the initial images for Cinema Tower (not that they were any good) which hinted at a much more dramatic form than Daniels ended up producing.

The second point is that sometimes a dramatic design makes enemies, not friends. At the 202 Bathurst (Origami) meeting, the architecture was criticized by locals as being 'too dramatic' or 'too extreme' or some other hogwash. Yet speak to nearly anyone in the design community and they'd likely give it a thumbs up.

I guess what I'm saying is that while we (UT, the design community, etc.) may think there is a general consensus about what constitutes 'good design,' often there are great gulfs between what we may like and what the wider public wants. So I reiterate: design is not a democratic process.
 
TonyV said:
Point well taken, pe, and while I understand the optics of assembling a working group, the outcome is the ultimate bad one, punishing everyone - restating that this intersection is a quasi-public space.

Someone has to have some integrity here, and there is no evidence of any such thing, it all looks like throwing one's hands up in the air in exasperation, as you have suggested. The developer stands to make a lot of money on this; they should care more.
Click to expand...

You are more than correct here. Lanterra is choosing to respect the working group (which is nice), but in the end they know they can build pretty much anything they like. With power like that, I'd prefer that they be bullish with something dramatic than bow to a myopic and pedantic working group.
 
Eh, the BIG veneer is already wearing thin. Too many one-liners and post-hoc-rationalizations. It all gets kind of tiresome after awhile, especially when you've been giving the same spiel for 5 years now (often verbatim).

I thought you were more on the ball than that dreamer.
 
I don't mean literally BIG. I just mean BIGish. You know "wow" us with something crazy. I'm still waiting for the aA neo-Brutalism tower to reappear. Ditch the all glazed look and give us some "meat." :)

Speaking of balls, what about some hoops down the Yonge Street street level facade? Playing to the crowd....:p
 
Paul Rudolph was doing neo-Brutalist high-rises before it was 'neo...'

Paul-Rudolph-Architect.jpg


I would market this as "The Straight-F#$*ing-Awesome." Cover of CondoGuide anyone?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The picture above/below? looks remarkably like the Olympic Village from the Montreal Olympics.Definitely hearkens back to the 70s, just on a much grander scale.
 
Neo-Metabolism? It's such an under-represented school in its' original form (and pretty much non-existent in Toronto)...or better yet Neo-BioMetabolism, taking into account the green imperative?

AoD
 
As much as I dislike most of the shabby retail on Yonge Street, the new bunker type of retail that exists around Dundas Square (325 Yonge) is even worse. I wouldn't be surprised if that is the type of retail being proposed for 501. I would hate to see that become a trend, though I do think something needs to be done about Yonge Street. Another thing I absolutely hate is above grade parking, particularly in a residential building. It gives me visions of exhaust fumes seeping up into the building however unlikely. Paradoxically, I quite like the above grade parking lot at Charles East off Yonge.
 
So, what exactly is the reason given that this building should have above ground parking levels? Oh right, it cant be below grade because its on top of a subway, in the most transit accessible area of the country. gotchya. ???
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top