Northern Light
Superstar
As it's shaping up now, this will likely be a mass timber.
Still more design development to do.
- Thread starter ferusian
- Start date
As it's shaping up now, this will likely be a mass timber.
Still more design development to do.
Technical Difficulties
New Member
Huh. Didn't expect that, not sure why, but I'm pleasantly surprised. Appreciate the insight!
DevDudeToronto
New Member
I wonder how they'll deal with the heritage building on site. It's sort of right in the middle and hard to work around, not to mention it's in a state of disrepair.
Northern Light
Superstar
The building itself will come down, the facades are to kept.
However, the disrepair, to my understanding, is severe, so how that may be accomplished is indeed a question.
I don't know that there is really anything worth saving here, but to the extent their maybe, I'd be happy to support the proponent in going for recreation, rather than preservation.
DevDudeToronto
New Member
Such a beautiful facade!!! 
flonicky
Senior Member
I mean, the way it's worked into the rendering shows a streetscape that's 99.99999999% better than most of the dull new street levels in the city. But I'm a little upset that we're losing the double 'FURNITURE' and '& INTERIORS' signs. That's pretty unique. If that's not a heritage feature, what is?
DevDudeToronto
New Member
That rendering was from the previous and now defunct developer. I imagine we'll be seeing Markee's renderings soon though.
flonicky
Senior Member
Technical Difficulties
New Member
The revised application is now submitted for this site. On quick glance, I didn't see any retail, but a much better looking proposal in my opinion than what was previously proposed.
Northern Light
Superstar
I want to like this........... I like Markee... ...
I do appreciate the City forcing the reconstructed heritage, which adds little value and some other issues contributed to the problems here............but I don't view this as supportable in its current state.
1) As noted by @Technical Difficulties above there is no retail along Danforth here in the new build portion, there is some proposed in the rebuilt heritage. This is next to a shelter which already has a blank face to the street...........this would create an extended dead zone which is a hard no.
2) The new build architecture fronting the street is ghastly.
Render:
First floor is too short, it doesn't line up w/the shelter next door, or with the reconstructed heritage!
No nod to either adjacent roof line. I don't need a setback, but you need a visual cue that shows some sort of nod to context.
The misaligned windows on the third floor read as literally incompetent. Wow this is terrible.
No problem with use, which is great, no problem with the height...........but holy hell is that ugly, the tower at the rear looks fine.
***
Fixes:
1) Higher first floor.
2) Visual nod to the roof height of the shelter next door
3) Properly align the windows
4) Ground floor retail extending into the new build is mandatory.
***
Other stuff:
From the Cover Letter:
Ground Floor Plan:
Description:
Working AIC Link:
www.toronto.ca
@Paclo
I do appreciate the City forcing the reconstructed heritage, which adds little value and some other issues contributed to the problems here............but I don't view this as supportable in its current state.
1) As noted by @Technical Difficulties above there is no retail along Danforth here in the new build portion, there is some proposed in the rebuilt heritage. This is next to a shelter which already has a blank face to the street...........this would create an extended dead zone which is a hard no.
2) The new build architecture fronting the street is ghastly.
Render:
First floor is too short, it doesn't line up w/the shelter next door, or with the reconstructed heritage!
No nod to either adjacent roof line. I don't need a setback, but you need a visual cue that shows some sort of nod to context.
The misaligned windows on the third floor read as literally incompetent. Wow this is terrible.
No problem with use, which is great, no problem with the height...........but holy hell is that ugly, the tower at the rear looks fine.
***
Fixes:
1) Higher first floor.
2) Visual nod to the roof height of the shelter next door
3) Properly align the windows
4) Ground floor retail extending into the new build is mandatory.
***
Other stuff:
From the Cover Letter:
Ground Floor Plan:
Description:
Working AIC Link:
Application Details
www.toronto.ca
@Paclo
D
DavidCapizzano
Guest
The above criticism is nuts - this is a fantastic submission from Markee and Batay Csorba. Kudos to them for engaging a small firm for a main street building like this. Approved.
Northern Light
Superstar
Amenity space fronting a main street is ok now, and critiquing it is nuts?
It's a good submission, with lots to like, but the Danforth-facing part needs fixing.
Post-refinement, sure.
ProjectEnd
Superstar
I get the small number of units makes a second elevator largely unnecessary, but you need redundancy. To expect folks to slug up 8 flights when the one goes out of order shouldn't be permissible at a code level (though unfortunately it is).
Lenser
Senior Member
Gotta agree with NL. I don't have a problem with window alignment per se but the nod to ultra-local context in terms of lining up the floors visually makes sense; that first floor ought to be higher to match one of the flanking buildings (take your pick),
christiesplits
Senior Member
I don't agree fully with Northern's critique, but definitely agree that there needs to be retail component. The Danforth is one of Toronto's great commercial thoroughfares. It's unacceptable to not have commercial at street level. This is also my main critique of the 975 Danforth proposal further west.