[P23]

Is the apparent small discontinuity in the vertical middle of the model an actual architectural feature, or is that just an artifact of the model (e.g., is the model in two physical pieces that are slightly misaligned)?

Either way, that seems like one bland building.

Looks like a byproduct of the 3d print to me. They probably did it in 2 halves as it might be too large to print all at once.

 

[Benito]

That is the first 3D printed model tower that I have seen here. Have the developers been using this method of building models for very long?

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Feel free to correct me on this: I think most of the sales centre models aren't built by 3d printing - it's more for rapid prototyping.

AoD

 

[interchange42]

This one was 3D printed, and yes, it's in more than one piece, hence the slight shift midway up the model.

42

 

[ProjectEnd]

Looks like a byproduct of the 3d print to me. They probably did it in 2 halves as it might be too large to print all at once.

Correct.

That is the first 3D printed model tower that I have seen here. Have the developers been using this method of building models for very long?

Developers, no. Architects, increasingly yes.

Feel free to correct me on this: I think most of the sales centre models aren't built by 3d printing - it's more for rapid prototyping.

AoD

Correct. Sales centre models are far larger and more complex. Their construction is more akin to something that an architectural student would produce, each piece, one at a time. There are offices (Peter McCann for example) that specialize in this kind of model.

 

[M.R.Victor]

Maybe I'm the only one with a juvenile mind here but upon looking at the model, I couldn't help but think that "The c*ck tower" would be a very appropriate sales name for this project.

 

[Mongo]

Maybe I'm the only one with a juvenile mind here but upon looking at the model, I couldn't help but think that "The c*ck tower" would be a very appropriate sales name for this project.

I admit that a similar thought crossed my mind when I looked at the images.

 

[Torontovibe]

Maybe I'm the only one with a juvenile mind here but upon looking at the model, I couldn't help but think that "The c*ck tower" would be a very appropriate sales name for this project.

I wish this tower was shaped like one. I think it would be quite appropriate and lovely here. I love the Gherkin in London!

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

I wish this tower was shaped like one. I think it would be quite appropriate and lovely here. I love the Gherkin in London!

Vaseline Tower is pretty close by.

AoD

 

[ProjectEnd]

Cross-posted from the YC thread:

View attachment 46791

Photo credit: interchange42

 

[greenleaf]

Intention to designate 480 and 484 Yonge on Toronto Preservation Board agenda

Property owner agrees to designation.

"This report recommends that City Council state its intention to designate the properties at 480 and 484 Yonge Street under Part IV, Section 29 of the Ontario Heritage Act. Located on the west side of Yonge Street, north of College Street and between Grenville and Grosvenor Streets, the sites contain a mid 19th century commercial building that was updated in the early 20th century and the landmark clock tower from the former Yonge Street Fire Hall that was more recently associated with the St. Charles Tavern. Both properties were listed on the City of Toronto Heritage Inventory (now known as the Heritage Register) in 1974.

The properties at 480 and 484 Yonge Street, along with the adjoining sites at 490 and 492 Yonge Street (which are not identified as heritage properties) are the subject of a development application that proposes to retain the principal (east) façade of the commercial building at 480 Yonge and the surviving clock tower from the former fire hall at 484 Yonge as part of a multi-storey residential development. The property owner has agreed to the designation of the properties at 480 and 484 Yonge Street under Part IV, Section 29 of the Ontario Heritage Act."

 

[interchange42]

The property owner has agreed to the designation of the properties at 480 and 484 Yonge Street under Part IV, Section 29 of the Ontario Heritage Act."

This would not mean that a redesign is coming, does it? I take it that only the clock tower at 484 Yonge is what's being designated of that property? The frontage of that building has zero historical value, and in fact it's currently an aesthetic crime.

Could there be anything left of any of the previous frontages under there?

42

 

[Automation Gallery]

i doubt it

 

[88drums]

Opening the clock tower to the street looks promising so far. Impinging on that by saving the two-storey abominations out front would be a huge mistake. Sure hope this isn't the case.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

The Heritage report for 484 Yonge (Clocktower) - from the Sept Toronto Preservation Board:

http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2015/pb/bgrd/backgroundfile-83724.pdf

With the alterations to the former Yonge Street Fire Hall during the late 19th and 20th centuries, only its distinctive clock tower remains intact and continues to rise over the adjoining buildings from its original position that is set back from and overlooks Yonge Street. Above a brick clad base , the clock tower retains its three dimensional four-sided form and wood and slate detailing. The base with trios of round window openings (Image 26) supports the bell-cast mansard roof and the extensions that incorporate the clock and terminate in the hipped roof. Each side of the tower features round-arched window openings with classical keystones and cornices, sections of cross-hatched woodwork and the clock faces. The clock tower remains a visible feature on Yonge Street where it is viewed from both directions. (p. 8)

Pretty clear that the only target was the tower itself, unlike 480 Yonge:

http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2015/pb/bgrd/backgroundfile-83576.pdf

Considering the proponent's plans to incorporate 480 Yonge and save/expose the clock tower, it's pretty clear why they had agreed to the two designations.

AoD