Rascacielo
Senior Member
Yes, the article is more informative than critical
- Thread starter androiduk
- Start date
UrbanAffair
Senior Member
That's Dave's job to be informative. He isn't the architecture critic for the Globe, that's Alex.
But as he lives literally in the address next to mine, I can ask him any questions anyone has.
But as he lives literally in the address next to mine, I can ask him any questions anyone has.
tstormers
Senior Member
UrbanAffair
Senior Member
I have inquired.
He told me to tell you, and I quote:
"Oh yes, we know the Muffin man
The Muffin man, the Muffin man
Oh yes, we know the Muffin man
Who lives on Drury Lane?"
The question mark at the end confused me, but I think he just wanted to confirm we are indeed talking about the same muffin man. We want to be precise here, because the other muffin man is not a good guy.
He told me to tell you, and I quote:
"Oh yes, we know the Muffin man
The Muffin man, the Muffin man
Oh yes, we know the Muffin man
Who lives on Drury Lane?"
The question mark at the end confused me, but I think he just wanted to confirm we are indeed talking about the same muffin man. We want to be precise here, because the other muffin man is not a good guy.
tstormers
Senior Member
Natika33
Active Member
Drury Lane and nearby spots to grab muffins, just in case a visualization of where we are talking about was needed:
Last edited:
innsertnamehere
Superstar
Nah, the muffin man can be referring to only one muffin shop in the City..
Alex L
Active Member
Besides the muffins, I think that's a historic building too. I believe that was a priest's house close to 200 years ago. Is it heritage-protected? Needs some roofing work.
Northern Light
Superstar
This proposal is at Design Review Committee tomorrow at 1:05pm.
The live stream link is here:
The live stream link is here:
Northern Light
Superstar
There were technical issues w/the stream above. The session is now posted to You Tube:
We've seen a lot of the slides already, so I'm trying not to repeat. I don't remember if we've seen this one:
Some interesting stuff here:
Questions of Clarification:
~ Around the 50 minute mark, one of the most embarrassing exchanges I've ever heard, from both ends.
A panel member who claims to use College Station regularly asks if a second entrance to the station has been contemplated............uhh.....its under construction and has been for 2 full years?
The responding party on behalf of client doesn't realize this either.........after much hemming/hawing........'if something could be worked out with the City....." (Eventually they get clear on there being a second entrance)
The second entrance is on the plans shown in the presentation. Wow.........
This is the slide that shows two different TTC Access points:
Another question was around materiality of the towers.............. the reply including information that its not at all fixed yet, much discussion on ratio of solid to glass. A strong desire to get the towers to be non-contemporary in appearance and feel like a natural vertical evolution of the base/podium.
Question about displacement of tenants - 4 to 5 years offsite.
Two years of prep-work during which residents remain in place, then moved offsite, then brought back in to the north tower.
Moving along to comments from the panel:
Anna: Opportunity. Some thought required into pickup/drop off, particularly for daycare. Like that the residential lobbies will be sky lobbies, grade-access limited to elevator core.
Dima: A need to resolve materiality properly, also proportions/dimensionality. Concern over the way the windows are articulated on the new build. Towers feel too busy currently. Don't relate to podium well.
Jim Melvin: Incredible Project. But.....not geared to families - can't see family living taking place there. That's fine, but market/program should align w/services provided. Elevator wait times are a concern. If people have to wait, shouldn't elevator lobbies be community spaces, windows, seating? Love the Winter Garden
Jim Gough: Love the forest garden, and the green arch idea. Need for interactive public space in park, fountains/playspaces Repeats the need for a second entrance to College Station....... (rolls eyes). Material for meeting was overwhelming.
Heather: Scale issues w/towers, particularly centre tower, stepping disappears. Another endorsement for sky lobbies. Agreement w/Dima Consider Steinway Tower as a possible reference. Crown on south tower is too subtle, needs to double scale. Proposal interferes w/City Hall view. Maybe shave the floor plates. Love Green Arch.
Jessica: Consider option to connect to the Park at the upper ground level so that people would not have to go down (within the building) to back up to enjoy the park.
Paul: Some concern about private meets public in the park. Some concern that there are too many doorways (means too many sections require their own dedicated entrance.)
Vote: Support - Unanimous - with Key Condition - (it was a bit mumbly) but it was to better address the viewshed of City Hall and Old City Hall.
* hopefully I've transcribed properly, with correct attributions. Apologies if there are any errors. Members speaking were not shown on camera, and the audio was not ideal.
We've seen a lot of the slides already, so I'm trying not to repeat. I don't remember if we've seen this one:
Some interesting stuff here:
Questions of Clarification:
~ Around the 50 minute mark, one of the most embarrassing exchanges I've ever heard, from both ends.
A panel member who claims to use College Station regularly asks if a second entrance to the station has been contemplated............uhh.....its under construction and has been for 2 full years?
The responding party on behalf of client doesn't realize this either.........after much hemming/hawing........'if something could be worked out with the City....." (Eventually they get clear on there being a second entrance)
The second entrance is on the plans shown in the presentation. Wow.........
This is the slide that shows two different TTC Access points:
Another question was around materiality of the towers.............. the reply including information that its not at all fixed yet, much discussion on ratio of solid to glass. A strong desire to get the towers to be non-contemporary in appearance and feel like a natural vertical evolution of the base/podium.
Question about displacement of tenants - 4 to 5 years offsite.
Two years of prep-work during which residents remain in place, then moved offsite, then brought back in to the north tower.
Moving along to comments from the panel:
Anna: Opportunity. Some thought required into pickup/drop off, particularly for daycare. Like that the residential lobbies will be sky lobbies, grade-access limited to elevator core.
Dima: A need to resolve materiality properly, also proportions/dimensionality. Concern over the way the windows are articulated on the new build. Towers feel too busy currently. Don't relate to podium well.
Jim Melvin: Incredible Project. But.....not geared to families - can't see family living taking place there. That's fine, but market/program should align w/services provided. Elevator wait times are a concern. If people have to wait, shouldn't elevator lobbies be community spaces, windows, seating? Love the Winter Garden
Jim Gough: Love the forest garden, and the green arch idea. Need for interactive public space in park, fountains/playspaces Repeats the need for a second entrance to College Station....... (rolls eyes). Material for meeting was overwhelming.
Heather: Scale issues w/towers, particularly centre tower, stepping disappears. Another endorsement for sky lobbies. Agreement w/Dima Consider Steinway Tower as a possible reference. Crown on south tower is too subtle, needs to double scale. Proposal interferes w/City Hall view. Maybe shave the floor plates. Love Green Arch.
Jessica: Consider option to connect to the Park at the upper ground level so that people would not have to go down (within the building) to back up to enjoy the park.
Paul: Some concern about private meets public in the park. Some concern that there are too many doorways (means too many sections require their own dedicated entrance.)
Vote: Support - Unanimous - with Key Condition - (it was a bit mumbly) but it was to better address the viewshed of City Hall and Old City Hall.
* hopefully I've transcribed properly, with correct attributions. Apologies if there are any errors. Members speaking were not shown on camera, and the audio was not ideal.
Last edited:
tstormers
Senior Member
I really hope they redesign these unit sizes... The industry as a whole needs to create livable units and stop with the undersized units with no storage space and no space to do separate things while living with a partner, (basically living on top of each other).
For context in sqft.
Studio - 33m2 = 355 sqft
1 BD - 45m2 = 484 sqft
1 BD+D - 46m2 = 495 sqft - (9 sqft Den??) Or same size as a 1BD.
2 BD - 57m2 = 613 sqft - (my 1BD condo I rented in North York was 620sqft and my ex and I had no personal space away from each other if you wanted. Add to that no where to eat but the couch. Really cramming those bedrooms in!)
The Studio in the below plan looks almost as bad as the Forma ones (Forma is worse, I think). It might be 30m2 based of the other towers' sizes.
I really hope people stop buying these so they stop building them. I work in the field and wish I didn't have to design them, but you do what the client asks unfortunately, or at least in my position.
For context in sqft.
Studio - 33m2 = 355 sqft
1 BD - 45m2 = 484 sqft
1 BD+D - 46m2 = 495 sqft - (9 sqft Den??) Or same size as a 1BD.
2 BD - 57m2 = 613 sqft - (my 1BD condo I rented in North York was 620sqft and my ex and I had no personal space away from each other if you wanted. Add to that no where to eat but the couch. Really cramming those bedrooms in!)
The Studio in the below plan looks almost as bad as the Forma ones (Forma is worse, I think). It might be 30m2 based of the other towers' sizes.
I really hope people stop buying these so they stop building them. I work in the field and wish I didn't have to design them, but you do what the client asks unfortunately, or at least in my position.
Last edited:
rdaner
Senior Member
Just wanted to through in here that at TIFF I heard that the Toronto Film School is looking for a big space to combine the current 3 campuses and the commercial spaces here would be ideal. 
Skyhighzz
Active Member
If they (HPA & GWL) want to be “unique, bold & groundbreaking” like other iconic world landmarks, at heights of 75 & 90 storeys rising above for all to see; I’d ditch the dullish beige -like facade & go with the more vibrant, stunning mauve-rose colour scheme (seen in renderings) or even a vivid peachy-beige would be much nicer. Let’s try to be globally outstanding & impressive.
Amare
Senior Member
As long as the Ontario Government (all parties really) continue to be in bed with developers, there wont be any change to what we're seeing unfortunately.
Undead
Senior Member
My living room alone is larger than those studios.