Would have been a much more elegant design not to do an L-shaped floorplate but only the N-S rectilinear portion on the west side, thereby increasing the distance to 40 Walmer and having less impact on the church. I'm also astounded that facade retention was not required along Lowther, given its quality and whereas Planning insisted on facade retention on such banal facades as the LCBO Lakeshore site and Rockport's Davisville project.
 
From TAS' IG.

IMG_4632.jpeg
IMG_4633.jpeg
IMG_4634.jpeg
 
AlbertC said:
Feels very Chicago school. Although with this being a TAS project, I'm keep expectations reserved of what will happen considering their current dealings.
Click to expand...
It's also for sale (as much of TAS' portfolio is), so I think there's quite a strong likelihood TAS isn't going to be the one to build this, which means the design is sort of up in the air.
 
ADRM said:
It's also for sale (as much of TAS' portfolio is), so I think there's quite a strong likelihood TAS isn't going to be the one to build this, which means the design is sort of up in the air.
Click to expand...
TAS doesn't own this, remember, the Church still does. But you're right - if TAS exists by the end of the year, I will be surprised. It's wild they're posting stuff on IG at all - focus, people!
 
AlbertC said:
Feels very Chicago school. Although with this being a TAS project, I'm keep expectations reserved of what will happen considering their current dealings.
Click to expand...

Yes, very Chicago. Will definitely come down to the materials. I'm cautiously optimistic.

If the response to the first proposal was any indicator, expect an uproar from The ARA.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top