It's hard to keep up with everything going on in the city. I can't say the last time I had the time to explore other forums. These developments drag on for years and conversations can repeat themselves. The opportunity is always present that a conservation will shift to a new direction. Posting new and improved angles every few months on every thread is not the same. It's not a conversation starter. It doesn't provide an update on the subject matter. It's just filler most people have already seen and are forced to scroll through. You understood restraint when posting your models. Forumers appreciated them much more because of it.

I've been bypassing threads where koops is marked as the most recent poster and it's a problem. He also provides great photo updates that are much more popular than his city model.
 
Last edited:
He may not understand sarcasm. Every time someone thanks him for his contribution, which happens frequently, only encourages him more.

Perhaps koops can post the subject towers without all the theoretical proposals to provide a new prespective and something of more substance worth discussing
 
Let's remember too the forum is named urbantoronto.ca. Throwing up contrived tower designs on enormous bland bases that only chain stores can enjoy is the lowest form of achieving dense urbanity. Similarly, the depth of koops' model doesn't extend beyond a hypothetical skyline and the height of the towers. The majority of urbantoronto.ca is still above that level of interest. At least I hope so.
 
Enough. Far more than enough. Stop. People will be on holiday from UrbanToronto next.

42
 
Back from the dead after 2 years off..........

Confidential report concerning this App is headed to the next City Council meeting on February 2nd/3rd.

The report is ahead of a LPAT case conference in March.

This one may have some Easter Eggs though............new drawings submitted in December 2020.

First, the report:


1611847932457.png


1611847988463.png


Hmm, not much there to work with; nothing in the AIC has been updated.

The drawings are in an attachment to the report.
 
It sounds promising. Recommend acceptance from the solicitor to avoid an LPAT hearing. I'm sure most of us forgot about this one, and it shouldn't have taken this long to come to a conclusion.
 
I like the setbacks. I hope quality is good if they decide to build this.
 
The design appears to be a bit too busy, with too many design elements that do not look they belong together. A little more refinement would be great.

The base and how it meets the street seems decent enough.
 
It looks weirdly PoMo. I'm surprised they didn't keep those twin spires for this version.
 
Looks great! The thicker cladding creating the punctured look around each window on the north, east, west part of the tower . And spliting the tower in sections with the cladding on certain floors on the south side. Will definitely make this building pop out from a distance as seen in the photos up above.
 
It's objectively awful, but fortunately it's just a value increase exercise. I wonder who might take this on once the zoning is established and Northam are in a position to vend. Here's hoping it's someone with some aesthetic sense who can take the massing and make something good out of it...
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top