Toronto Time and Space Condos | 101.8m | 29s | Pemberton | Wallman Architects

Socio-political issues aside, urban evolution is relevant in context to its era and/or respective location. KWC was born in desperation to its inhabitants' shear survival and livelihood during most of the 20th century. Along with many urbanists around the world, I also find it as a fascinating element of urban study. But to suggest it as an acceptable standard of urbanism in 21st century western hemisphere Toronto is beyond my understanding. Its biggest flaw stems from the fact that it was raw urbanism. Its lack of guidance led to its density overload and oppressive and suffocated presence. In terms of experience, my father grew up a block away from the original KWC, with countless stories of its struggles and turmoils. Intense density is necessarily to fit in past societies but not for the current St. Lawrence neighbourhood. There are also cultural differences to density between Asian cities and Toronto. HK's ultra density has been necessary for generations due to its scarce amount of usable land. Such development does not adhere to our planning guidelines.

As an urban enthusiast, I hope to see this block developed and as part of our rich urban fabric, but to accept the proposed details is beyond my reception of this site within this already thriving neighbourhood.
 
Last edited:
ProjectEnd said:
To further that, I'm not sure if Travis was using KWC as 'bad' precedent but many urban theorists are now of the opinion that it was one of the strongest and most organic (not to mention densest) collections of buildings the world has ever known. It wasn't without its own problems but to write it off as 'awful' smacks of a pretty elementary reading of the complex and layered urbanity it embodied. It's also not alone in the lessons it and other such Hong Kong super blocks can teach us Torontonians - namely that with an equally dense collection of at and above-grade retail units and a good sized cantilever over the sidewalk, you can put almost anything overhead.
Click to expand...

It was a slum...
 
arvelomcquaig said:
I love how this looks. It reminds me of Manhattan, the beautiful density of full blocks of buildings built right up against each other, coming right up to the sidewalk with no wasted space for unused lawns or whatever. I'm so sick of skinny glass towers rising from stumpy podiums to try to "fit in" the area. I don't care that it doesn't match its context; not all contexts are worth preserving. Some contexts need to be remade and improved, and Toronto could really use an uber-dense development like this, if only to set a precedent, to show that density shouldn't be so feared. I never found the countless parts of Manhattan that are like this AT ALL oppressive when I visited there; in fact, they were the most exciting and inspiring places to be. Why can't we build this way in Toronto? Do people who hate this hate the densest blocks of Manhattan, too? I would find that odd. I see such super density as a beautiful smorgasbord of humanity, not oppressive.
Click to expand...


I agree with you. I'd like to see a lot of the major intersections built up in this way, where appropriate, and considering the number of parking lots around Front and Sherbourne I don't see this kind of desnity as inappropriate... and yes, there is something dramatic in the wall-to-the-street approach to the design that feels right for what should be an important city crossroads. Density/height can taper down in either direction as appropriate.
 
I'm also going to have to agree with those who find nothing at all offensive about this level of density.

Its scale and bulk remind me of the Royal York -- and what's wrong with that?
 
I live in a townhouse about a block and a half from this site. I have long felt that the Acura parking lot which occupies most of the lot to be a blight to the neighbourhood. On its Esplanade end, this lot is the last undeveloped lot in the Crombie Park stretch from Jarvis to Parliament. As part of that very successful neighbourhood, I would like to see the development 'fit in' and not impair the real success of Crombie Park as a contiguous whole. However, fitting in need not be creating another 10 storey brick structure similar to others along Esplanade. Variety is a virtue and creating a building different from the others would be good for the neighbourhood.

Now, with respect to the proposed massive scale, I concur that urban density is not a bad thing. In many ways it is what we want. The neighbourhood is a walkable neighbourhood and most people there, it seems to me, are happy to live without being car reliant. They would not be there otherwise. The London Terrace block in Manhattan does strike me as perhaps too much bulk, even for Manhattan. I remember liking the London Terrace in NYC, but at the same time feeling it contrasted too much with the much smaller scale Victorian row houses in Chelsea.

We will see what happens. There will be a lot of gnashing of teeth and whispers of doom and despair, but the lot will be developed (not soon enough and after lots of construction related hassles) and life will carry on. I, for one, will be thrilled to see the end of the Acura car lot. Get the suburban shite out of my urban hood, as it were. I don't want to lose Sobey's, but the new development will likely plan to have a food vendor in the retail ground floor space in any event. The area is already incredibly well served by grocery stores and, of course, the Market is a few blocks away. I'd prefer not to lose the 'purple house'. It adds a reminder of the area's past as an industrial, working neighbourhood. It also added a little architectural contrast. It is a shame it doesn't have any nice features, otherwise the developer might be convinced to preserve its facade, for what its worth.

The Princess Street community garden strip is lovely. Hopefully a community garden can be retained somewhere on the site.
 
http://www.thestar.com/news/article/1205265--st-lawrence-neighbourhood-suffers-highrise-fever

St. Lawrence neighbourhood suffers highrise fever

Published On Sun Jun 03 2012
David Rider
Urban Affairs Bureau Chief


The latest proposal is kitty-corner to that site, from prominent builder Pemberton Group, which has bought the entire block bounded by Front St. E. to the north, Princess St. to the east, The Esplanade to the south, and Lower Sherbourne St. to the west.

On the block now, in what is also called “Old Town” for its roots as the city’s first neighbourhood, are a Sobey’s grocery store, an Acura dealership, parking and a black building known as a jam space for bands.
Click to expand...

In a rezoning application received by the city March 26, Pemberton said it plans two towers, soaring 34 and 33 storeys. The wider podium portion at the base includes street-level retail. Of the 1,663 units, 1,100 would have one bedroom and the rest two bedrooms.

The Pemberton building would reach about 117 metres — almost quadruple the 30-metre limit for a “reinvestment area.” The city sometimes lets developers go taller or denser in exchange for community benefits.
Click to expand...

People in the mixed-income neighbourhood aren’t anti-development or anti-condo, she adds. They just want developers to consider the impact of height and density on the community, not just the site, so it doesn’t become another Toronto “concrete canyon.”

St. Lawrence has limited parks and scant land to build schools and community centres, Kavanagh said, adding developers should limit soaring towers to neighbourhoods with infrastructure to support them. Residents are hoping the area will get Heritage Conservation District status to give them more clout in demanding changes.
Click to expand...

“It’s fair to say that where we are today and where we end up is going to be a fairly long process,” MacLeod says. Asked if that means the towers might not be so tall, he says: “It’s possible. We’d like to start these discussions and see where it takes us.”

The rare chance to redevelop an entire 2.5-acre block gives Pemberton flexibility to move features around.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
earlier in the thread I said that I was intrigued by these....hmm..I may have spoken too soon...

- height's o.k., but this is extremely bulky in a 70's kind of way....would look good in some mining town in central Russia?
 
gristle said:
It's hideous and banal and serves only to maximize developer profits.
Click to expand...

A beautiful design can "maximize developer profits" just as much as an ugly design can...you speak as if you resent that developers are in business to make a profit...
 
This has to be the ugliest design I've seen in Toronto in years. They didn't even make the slightest attempt to give it some charm.
 
Torontovibe said:
This has to be the ugliest design I've seen in Toronto in years. They didn't even make the slightest attempt to give it some charm.
Click to expand...

Yes, it is really close to the WORST design I have seen in recent years - some proposals would look good in a different location (60 Colborne as an example) but this is just dense and bulky, as far as one can tell from the rendering, squeezed right up to the property line. Ugh!
 
DSC said:
Yes, it is really close to the WORST design I have seen in recent years - some proposals would look good in a different location (60 Colborne as an example) but this is just dense and bulky, as far as one can tell from the rendering, squeezed right up to the property line. Ugh!
Click to expand...

With all the above average height proposals going on in the area, i swear they proposed this monsterosity to add fuel to the fire and piss off the neighbourhood....they are testing out the waters and know very well this will never fly....the developers will probably end up with a 15-20 storey approval and be just as happy.
 
I hope it gets shot down. With extreme prejudice. There are very few projects that offend me designwise... this is just ugly.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top