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

[DSC]

It is baffling to me that this development ever got approved in the first place. It is a total pig from an urban design perspective, does not have significant public/community benefits associated with it (only $2.5M Section 37), and from what I can tell from looking at the public record, the City never supported it and yet did not show up to oppose it at the LPAT hearing (in fact they settled with the developer on mysterious terms).

Very suss.

The problem with this whole development (discussed months ago) is that the site had very 'extensive' development 'allowances' due to an OMB decision from the 1990s and if the developer had built what he had 'of right' it would probably be an even worse mess than it is. It is still beyond me how what may have been acceptable 30 years ago could ever be the base line of what is acceptable now but we also live in a world where a building permit, once issued, never seems to expire.

 

[saynotofaux]

The problem with this whole development (discussed months ago) is that the site had very 'extensive' development 'allowances' due to an OMB decision from the 1990s and if the developer had built what he had 'of right' it would probably be an even worse mess than it is. It is still beyond me how what may have been acceptable 30 years ago could ever be the base line of what is acceptable now but we also live in a world where a building permit, once issued, never seems to expire.

I didn't know that there was a standing approval. We need use-it-or-lose-it development entitlements!

 

[Kama]

White and black panels of two towers. The white panels look actually quite nice, centrally better than the neighboring building.

It's 11:15 and they are still running their power trowels. I try to stay positive about the effect of this building for the neighbourhood, but they seem to be doing everything possible to alienate everyone around.

Running noisy equipment at 11:15 is a giant middle finger to the neighbours. Why would they do that?

Maybe because they borrowed some money and need to sell apartments?

 

[bilked]

 

[FormerTorontonianBackInTO]

White and black panels of two towers. The white panels look actually quite nice, centrally better than the neighboring building.

The white and black panels are not the most unattractive part of the building, but it would have been preferable if they had warmer tones and/or actual color, like most of the area surrounding them. The reason that they look better than the building next door is because they're new. If those white panels get dirty and aren't cleaned they'll look brutal (though they're probably easier to keep clean than the building next door). The brutal part is all the grey spandrel, with no color and no texture (it's not even the better looking more reflective type). Just cheap, soulless filler that looks worse than anything else in that neighborhood....and the worst part is that they have so much of it on the ground level where everyone will be looking at it - some other developers will at least put in some precast brick or curtain wall at grade, and leave the depressing looking back-painted grey spandrel to the tower(s).

 

[C-mac]

This project has taken a tone of criticism in this thread, and I guess it goes to show that this stuff is very subjective, as far as I'm concerned, this looks quite nice to me.

 

[Al Ski]

Borgatecture is all the rage these these days. Corner borgs, mid-block borgs..this is just a Motherborg.
With their weirdly laid out units fit only for Borgs.
They probably have AI that determines max profit unit layouts, irregardless of human desires.
It has nothing to do with what anybody wants or what anybody needs..
It's all about MAX PROFIT for private equity and hedge funds.
And they'll all be long gone when all this max profit, corner cut crap is crumbling and failing.

 

[UtakataNoAnnex]

This project has taken a tone of criticism in thread, and I guess it goes to show that this stuff is very subjective, as so far this looks quite nice to me.

That it 's taking a ton of criticism over all should raise alarm that the design elements of this building is problematic. In comparison to The One for example, even its biggest detractors don't seem to have an issue of how it looks both in render and construction. So while individual dislikes of this building are indeed subjective, it's that multiple posters are having the same issues with this suggests that it's problematic for good reasons. You know, trees meet forest.

 

[TheSix]

This project has taken a tone of criticism in this thread, and I guess it goes to show that this stuff is very subjective, as so far this looks quite nice to me.

Pointing out that an apple is rotten isn't subjective, it's a fact.

 

[C-mac]

Pointing out that an apple is rotten isn't subjective, it's a fact.

Some people don't mind eating rotten apples.

 

[C-mac]

That it 's taking a ton of criticism over all should raise alarm that the design elements of this building is problematic. In comparison to The One for example, even it's biggest detractors don't seem to have an issue of how it looks both in render and construction. So while individual dislikes of this building are indeed subjective, it's that multiple posters are having the same issues with this suggests that it's problematic for good reasons. You know, trees meet forest.

What's problematic about it? The fact they don't like it?

 

[Bjays92]

Some people don't mind eating rotten apples.

Yes the project can be objectively bad while you still subjectively like it and vice versa.

Overall aesthetic design is subjective, however the finer details, such as quality of cladding, use of things like mullions, or even if the cladding lines up properly, has stains or streaks etc that's all objective. The quality of this building is objectively poor, doesnt mean you cant like it.

Likewise the quality of The One for example, thus far is objectively first class, but you can also subjectively dislike it for whatever various reasons.

So case and point. This building is still objectively bad but I'm glad you dont find it as offensive as everyone else does

 

[C-mac]

Yes the project can be objectively bad while you still subjectively like it and vice versa.

Overall aesthetic design is subjective, however the finer details, such as quality of cladding, use of things like mullions, or even if the cladding lines up properly, has stains or streaks etc that's all objective. The quality of this building is objectively poor, doesnt mean you cant like it.

Likewise the quality of The One for example, thus far is objectively first class, but you can also subjectively dislike it for whatever various reasons.

So case and point. This building is still objectively bad but I'm glad you dont find it as offensive as everyone else does

Well, I guess my train of thought is this:

I just like the DT core to be packed with buildings, (especially tall ones), so once a building goes up, as long as it's not a blue or green glass rectangle, I like it. Obviously buildings like The One are first class, but all the buildings can't be like that. It's just not realistic. So aesthetically I think it gets a checkmark so far.

 

[DSC]

Well, I guess my train of thought is this:

I just like the DT core to be packed with buildings, (especially tall ones), so once a building goes up, as long as it's not a blue or green glass rectangle, I'm like it. Obviously buildings like The One are first class, but all the buildings can't be like that. It's just not realistic. So aesthetically I think it gets a checkmark so far.

Though I too like to see more density in the core, I think one needs to look at more than density but should also evaluate how the building contributes to and fits into its neighbourhood. Some may contribute by simply 'fitting in' and by being (essentially) invisible, others by creating 'iconic' architecture, some by providing vital public space or services. Obviously some buildings are first class (I would put the CIBC building into this category) but suggest you hold off on your enthusiasm for The One - it is FAR from finished and how it will look when completed cannot yet be assessed properly. Renderings and plans give one clues but it is only when one sees the finished product that can one really judge. (Though that does not stop any of us around here from doing so, of course!)

 

[C-mac]

Though I too like to see more density in the core, I think one needs to look at more than density but should also evaluate how the building contributes to and fits into its neighbourhood. Some may contribute by simply 'fitting in' and by being (essentially) invisible, others by creating 'iconic' architecture, some by providing vital public space or services. Obviously some buildings are first class (I would put the CIBC building into this category) but suggest you hold off on your enthusiasm for The One - it is FAR from finished and how it will look when completed cannot yet be assessed properly. Renderings and plans give one clues but it is only when one sees the finished product that can one really judge. (Though that does not stop any of us around here from doing so, of course!)

I try to hold off judging any of the buildings fully until they are almost complete, as in the early stages it's too hard to tell what the final product will look like. My assessment of The One was in response to the other members saying the materials are "first class" and things of that nature.