[interchange42]

I don't like the new design overall, but I don't mind the triangular park, mostly for the fact that it gives the 1931-built Toronto Hydro Building to the east more prominence.

The tower though? Not architecturally worthy enough for its height. I am hoping that the relatively unsophisticated design (and entirely tacked on spires at the top) are an indication that this is only a rezoning exercise at this point, and nothing like how a final design would look.

42

 

[greenleaf]

Is there precedent for a heritage designated building being ripped down?

That parkland dedication is stupid.

This whole thing is stupid.

 

[modernizt]

I'm usually a fan of a grid-with-punched-windows facade, but the proportions of this are all wrong and feel incredibly heavy. I won't comment on the tacky 80s/PoMo vibes or the obsession with symmetry.

 

[interchange42]

Congratulations on avoiding commenting on the tacky 80s/PoMo vibes or the obsession with symmetry. (I'm just back to mention that I didn't really like the first version either, but at least it was a bit sexy in its own weird way.)

42

 

[Automation Gallery]

Goes from two towers ranking 33rd to one tower in the 19th spot on The 100m List.

Hahaha come on, are you not counting on the height of the spires?, could end up being 277m/909 ft.

 

[Miscreant]

I like it, looks a bit of another time and I appreciate that a lot. We have enough of the same, this may not be fresh but it is refreshing. I like the crown and spires, as mentioned above something we lack.
I would probably prefer a single spire ans a crown that stepped up to have a point at the south west (closest to corner)

I'm with you. Call me a philistine: I like this proposal.

 

[DonValleyRainbow]

Hahaha come on, are you not counting on the height of the spires?, could end up being 277m/909 ft.

lol no. They don't even include them whole in the arch plans, they're chopped!

EDIT: upon further analysis, I think I can conservatively say the spires are at least another 24 metres, I'll be adding that to the height until something more definitive comes out. Up to spot 11!

 

[smably]

This is an aesthetic (and heritage-preservation) nightmare.

 

[condovo]

Dismal. Back to the drawing board.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Dismal. Back to the drawing board.

Before that, try getting someone new to do it. This is trash.

AoD

 

[condovo]

^^^IBI Group is capable of good work with the right client.

 

[ProjectEnd]

...and Northam isn't that.

But really this is just a value-add proposal. Northam doesn't have any intention to develop it. Just rezone and flip.

 

[innsertnamehere]

... to someone else who will presumably develop it, though likely without IBI. I could see this becoming an aA project under Cresford.

 

[thecharioteer]

With the establishment of the HCD on Yonge and the changes to the OMB imminent, the City holds all the cards on this site. It would be almost impossible for the owner to argue in favour of this scheme from a planning point-of-view under the proposed (and soon to be approved by the Province) criteria for appeals.

 

[Automation Gallery]

It would be almost impossible for the owner to argue in favour of this scheme from a planning point-of-view under the proposed (and soon to be approved by the Province) criteria for appeals.

You talking design or height?