First and foremost this building is simply too large.

The rule of thumb in good planning is to keep blocks at about 100M max.

This building is a whopping ~165M across, that's just nuts. You can't camouflage that with different cladding. This needed to be two buildings with a mid-block connection to the lane way.

The streetwall is also too tall. 13 storeys straight-up, no setbacks is difficult to pull off on a wide street, but might, arguably work on Cherry. On the Front and Trinity sides, it's just too much. It needed a setback after the 8th floor, at most.

Finally, the lower cladding aims high, but under-delivers due to the colour...........but the upper cladding looks awful. It's irredeemable in any colour. The choice to offset the windows also doesn't work. This feels less like true COBE than COBE meets KirKor with a touch of G+C for good measure.

***

That the building is rental is excellent, there is value in the affordable units, of course; but that value could have been delivered in a much nicer package, without a lot more cost.

***

Edit to add: For comparison, the longest section of new build at Mirvish is ~65M
 
I respect the opinions of other and it seems that there are a lot that aren't loving it. That is okay.

My perspective: I really like it.

Having watched this being built from home everyday, I am enjoying seeing it get closer and closer to completion. When the trees (planters, grass, AND trees), people, and new business start to emerge in a few months, people will come over to this opinion (hopefully).
 
I knew the cladding here reminded me of something, and it’s not rhubarb like I originally thought…

rdaner said:
View attachment 632148
Click to expand...

*too salty*

IMG_6904.jpeg


Maybe come spring we’ll see some moisture on these bad boys? (aka goopy, vibrant, voluptuous, varnish).
 
Northern Light said:
This feels less like true COBE than COBE meets KirKor with a touch of G+C for good measure.
Click to expand...
...I feel like that's a more suited description of Time and Space though. A project I would gladly see demoed for a 100 of these, IMO. >.<
 
Northern Light said:
First and foremost this building is simply too large.

The rule of thumb in good planning is to keep blocks at about 100M max.

This building is a whopping ~165M across, that's just nuts. You can't camouflage that with different cladding. This needed to be two buildings with a mid-block connection to the lane way.

The streetwall is also too tall. 13 storeys straight-up, no setbacks is difficult to pull off on a wide street, but might, arguably work on Cherry. On the Front and Trinity sides, it's just too much. It needed a setback after the 8th floor, at most.

Finally, the lower cladding aims high, but under-delivers due to the colour...........but the upper cladding looks awful. It's irredeemable in any colour. The choice to offset the windows also doesn't work. This feels less like true COBE than COBE meets KirKor with a touch of G+C for good measure.

***

That the building is rental is excellent, there is value in the affordable units, of course; but that value could have been delivered in a much nicer package, without a lot more cost.

***

Edit to add: For comparison, the longest section of new build at Mirvish is ~65M
Click to expand...
Agreed that it's too big of a single monotone building. Agreed that it should have been designed as two buildings (which it is) but more so two different articulated buildings with different claddings.

Don't agree with the streetwall. Maybe a few further setbacks on Cherry and Trinity, but otherwise it invites a new level of dense urban form to Toronto which isn't a skyscraper on a stupid podium.

Somewhat agree with the cladding. The precast is clearly a VE, but it still works because it's massed well. The upper portion, albeit there's too much of it, is incredibly interesting in its form, pattern, and shadow play. It's just the wrong colour. Or should have been, maybe 2-3 different tones/colours.

I like what we got, but it feels like the developer had a big VE hand here. I wish we got a little more of this kind of approach from Cobe:
1740501951145.png
 
everydayhim said:
Don't agree with the streetwall. Maybe a few further setbacks on Cherry and Trinity, but otherwise it invites a new level of dense urban form to Toronto which isnt a skyscraper on a stupid podium.

***

I like what we got, but it feels like the developer had a big VE hand here. I wish we got a little more of this kind of approach from Cobe:
View attachment 633004
Click to expand...

We can differ, of course.

But I would ask, in the example you cite above, do you see any 13s streetwalls, because I don't think I do.

That's a very high number. Yes we can absolutely do different urban forms than small box on top of big box.

But there really are limitations not only in terms of most people's tastes, but impact on sunlight/shadow, on wind and other practical considerations that derive from a very high, very straight street wall right next to a sidewalk.

There is some room for mitigation on the wind, but not much you can do about sun/shadow if the buildings are large.

As noted, when you look at that image of urbanity above, in which many here, myself included would find much to admire, you see mostly low rise and midrise forms, 2 relatively short, by Toronto standards towers, both with setbacks, both with towers that don't take up the full block, exceptional skyview/sun and lot of negative (or open) space between the buildings.
 
Northern Light said:
We can differ, of course.

But I would ask, in the example you cite above, do you see any 13s streetwalls, because I don't think I do.

That's a very high number. Yes we can absolutely do different urban forms than small box on top of big box.

But there really are limitations not only in terms of most people's tastes, but impact on sunlight/shadow, on wind and other practical considerations that derive from a very high, very straight street wall right next to a sidewalk.

There is some room for mitigation on the wind, but not much you can do about sun/shadow if the buildings are large.

As noted, when you look at that image of urbanity above, in which many here, myself included would find much to admire, you see mostly low rise and midrise forms, 2 relatively short, by Toronto standards towers, both with setbacks, both with towers that don't take up the full block, exceptional skyview/sun and lot of negative (or open) space between the buildings.
Click to expand...
yup, certainly agree with you. but questions of form relative to density are different based on context. this includes housing need, funding, design culture, etc.

the small town of Bremen, Germany certainly has a different need for housing than Toronto

in the end, i think were arguing a lot of the same points. it could have been different, under different circumstances, and in fact, maybe it should have been. but what we got is not bad at all, and it questions typical toronto density approaches and invites new questions and speculation on the urban fabric of an endlessly sporadic Toronto, which is good.

I'm excited to walk along a 13s streetwall on Front, actually. especially on a hot summer day in that nice cool shade. the courtyard feeling, however, might suck
 
I don't hate that grey cladding in principle, but there is just way too much of it. I liked this building a lot more when it was 5 or 6 stories tall than I do now, it just seems really hulking. Maybe two or three tall towers would have been better after all. I also still don't love the pinkeshness of the brick, but now I'm just beating a dead horse.

What will make or break this is the quality of the retail and the streetscape. Please, please don't give us 25 dead stick trees and a km of "for lease" signs gathering dust in dirty windows for the next 6 years.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top