Toronto The Residences of 488 University Avenue | 206.95m | 55s | Amexon | Core Architects

A few interesting tidbits:

- only 158 parking spaces. Is this the existing parking?
- almost half of the condo units will be 2 or 3 bedroom
- zero bachelor/studio units (!!) very surprised at this one due to the proximity of OCADU, UofT and Ryerson.
 
chriskayTO said:
- almost half of the condo units will be 2 or 3 bedroom
- zero bachelor/studio units (!!)
Click to expand...

tumblr_monlooc03d1s0ih7po1_400.gif
 
Application: Partial Permit Status: Not Started

Location: 480 UNIVERSITY AVE
TORONTO ON M5G 1V2

Ward 20: Trinity-Spadina

Application#: 13 214855 STR 00 PP Accepted Date: Sep 23, 2013

Project: Multiple Unit Building Partial Permit - Structural Framing

Description: Part Permit - Proposal to construct a 37 sty + mechanical penhouse residential addition with 453 residential units on existing 18 sty commercial building, 3 additional below grade parking levels under 2 existing parking levels, 2 sty + atrium side addition (East side), interior alterations throughout, and replace facade on existing building.
 
Glad the building was transferred from the marketing department back to the architects, who summarily dropped the stupid trees.
 
While the first proposal may have been a little over the top, this just represents mediocrity. The trees at least tried to push something new and interesting eye candy onto the street. Where is the pizzazz, surely some sort of flare could be incorporated in the base to engage the street.

Recent article by Hume meets the mark in explaining this. Fairly unhappy with the outcome of these DRP proceedings.
http://www.thestar.com/life/homes/2013/10/18/how_toronto_planners_ensure_mediocrity.html
 
^ Hume seems be knocking the planning department, not the DRP.

Regardless, novelty for novelty's sake is marketing, not architecture. Want to be novel? Great but account for the novelty. What is the functional problem being addressed by the novel form and how is it the solution? How is the novel form refined, resolved and integrated into the larger composition?

The trees were just a dumb gimmick; an empty gesture. They were heavy-handed and completely divorced from the rest of the building's architecture. Glad they're gone.
 
Last edited:
I linked the article because I believe it speaks to the mediocrity the city has come to accept as normal. And yes, Hume doesnt speak to the DRP. I agree the trees weren't necessarily the best choice. The design of the building's podium is limited and the issues regarding pedestrian space on Dundas street and better engagement with University are important. Perhaps this is just more reflective of my want to see some actual pizzazz and intrigue in design. Being novel does not equate being bad. It can but it doesn't have to and I think that's what I was hoping the podium through increased refinement would have brought about, given how novel it was in its first inception.

Not to harp on the trees, but i think that they could've extended slightly up the facade of the lower building to give the impression of an ivy growing up the side or roots in a different more subtle colour, while de-bulking the lower podiums overly crowded design. This could have maybe opened up the streetscape a little more while bringing the building out to meet the street in a better way as was originally planned.

But the world progresses and so I'll have to follow along and see what core's next response is.
 
^ The trees might have been refined, as advised by the DRP. Instead they were dropped. The DRP isn't opposed to intrigue and pizzazz. It is opposed to gimmickry though. It was reasonably open-minded about the trees. It just wanted some rigour applied to the gesture. The architects / developers clearly weren't up to the job / cost. The DRP called their bluff.
 
Last edited:
You want new pictures? We got new pictures. Check out the front page story, and then the dataBase file

42
 
From the article: DRP members also asked for a tower which appeared less bulky. Whereas most modern condo towers in Toronto have a floor plate of approximately 750sq m, the upper tower floor plate here is approximately 1150sq m, owing to its rise from a typically larger office tower below. Core's response lightens the bulk by extending the balconies from the façade in place of punching into a more engulfing plate, and by using a more transparent glass.


Here's an example of where I think the DRP's suggestions have resulted in a less attractive tower. Leaving aside that protruding balconies lessen the elegant simplicity of the design (and indeed almost any design that they're pasted on to), the more transparent glass will make the tower looks less bulky (not sure why bulk is an inherently negative characteristic) at the expense of creating the typical 'messy-bland' facade once residents move in. Now there are unique cases where I think residents' curtains actually add to the visual interest of a tower, such as at X, but generally they make towers look like transparent plastic shelving units. The problem is that it creates a visual clutter that distracts from the actual shape and detailing of the tower. As a side note, save for Fashion House, I think this is the first time I've ever seen a condo rendering include residents' curtains.

A similar outcome happened at One Wall Centre in Vancouver. The city demanded more transparent glass so as to help the tower blend in with the blue sky rather than stand out boldly - a goal which I would disagree with on its face and hope that the DRP doesn't pursue. Famously the developer and architect went with the darker glass they originally wanted for the lower portion of the tower before the city made them finish the top of the tower with the more transparent glass. Which glass tone looks more attractive to you?


1WallCentre-00909-001a.jpg

http://www.pnwarchitecture.com/Building/4805/One-Wall-Centre.php


main_image.jpg

http://www.condoinvancouver.ca/downtown-central/one-wall-centre.html


Thankfully the top portion of One Wall Centre has recently been reclad with the darker-toned glass.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top