A single, beefier, taller tower without a podium - that I'd like to see. I like the design language I'm seeing here but I dislike the tandem heights and claustrophobic spacing - all of it awkwardly perched on that splintered podium.
 
AlvinofDiaspar said:
David Oikawa ‏@DavidOikawa1 31m31 minutes ago
New application at 2 Carleton. Two 72 storey towers.
View attachment 88396
AoD
Click to expand...

The podium is gross. Not the most sophisticated commentary I've managed, but one that makes clear, in summation what i think.

Doesn't make any sense whatsoever.

The towers aren't bad.............but I'm not blown away.

On balance, leave that thing there that I don't care for............ LOL

Someone will come up with a better reason to tear it down, this is not that.
 
Actually, generically speaking, eye-grabbing tall/supertall densification is probably the *best* alibi for replacement: go big or go home, IOW. Otherwise, if it's just going to be something humdrum of more or less the same scale or a titch larger (much less a total reclad/remodel a la the Westbury), why bother. Stick with what's there and bow to the appreciative defence team; it's a sensible, prudent, and disarmingly positive path to follow. And brush aside those who reflect the Dunning-Kruger school of architectural appreciation.
 
I agree with the majority of people posting here. Ditch the podium, and go with a taller, thicker single tower (keep the tower facade/balcony design though, I rather like it).

The two-tower designs that we see so many of, must have better economics. (Less floor plate area devoted to elevators?) But if given a choice between a taller single tower and rejection, I expect that the developers would go with the option that still gives them some profit, if less than they were hoping for.
 
One wide 72 storey has a higher percentage of sellable area than two but, you need to sell a lot more units upfront and it takes a lot more money to build it than two towers than can be phased.

Again, I wouldn't view this submission as an owner actively looking to redevelop their property. This was submitted out of concern that the proposed changes to the zoning bylaw won't allow them to redevelop with a tall tower here.
 
It is a nice design, with potential (adjustments to the scale of the podium and separation between the buildings), that being said, I don't feel like this is right for the site. I do believe this will end up being consolidated into a single, taller proposal.
 
great towers.. Don't change them to much please.. Kinda interesting but kinda not. But it's a no doubt easy one to get built here. Cause it's just ok.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The NIMBYs are gonna have a FIELD DAY with this one. Gird your loins in advance of the first public hearing, proponent.

I'm all for 100+ stories and no podium here (subject to findings of servicing/wind/shadow studies and whatnot), but that feels like anathema to our planners and to our design guidelines, with which I am becoming increasingly frustrated.
 
I love tall buildings and I would hope for something exceptional on that corner, but from a purely practical point of view, I am so sick of elevator problems that I am no longer interested in living on a high floor. The cheapening that often seems to occur in this city is not limited to building envelopes - it extends to all systems, including elevators. (A friend of mine lives in a once-celebrated condo in the St. Lawrence area where they have serious plumbing problems - to the point where the actual plumbing does not conform to the plans.)
 
Yeah, the elevator thing is a serious drawback for myself as well. For that very reason I'm more interested in looking at mid-rise builds and interesting retrofits of existing warehouse stock.
 
I'm not opposed to redevelopment of this site but this looks like something that was done in a couple of hours so they could get something in before the guidelines are done. The podium is amateurish.

I'm not opposed to two towers but is this site actually large enough? Don't you need 25m between towers? I know these towers look thin but what's the point if they're too thin?
 
New image and stats for this thing:
viewSupportingDoc_Page_72.jpg


viewSupportingDoc_Page_63.jpg
 

Attachments

  • viewSupportingDoc_Page_72.jpg
    viewSupportingDoc_Page_72.jpg
    772.6 KB · Views: 953
  • viewSupportingDoc_Page_63.jpg
    viewSupportingDoc_Page_63.jpg
    926.6 KB · Views: 981
18 metres between the towers. 18 is the new 25.

42
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top