DSCToronto
Superstar
You may want to also add this photo to your (fantastic) Lower Don set as it shows that there seems to be little (obvious) work on the Ice & Debris area just north of Villiers Street
- Thread starter Dr. Snoot
- Start date
everydayhim
Active Member
cant understand why any rational architect would think that this alternate massing achieves anything better than the original
D
DavidCapizzano
Guest
V unfortunate that this ended up with Aspen Ridge / Core... Not a team I really trust to execute anything half decent. I'm expecting lots of oil canned black metal panels and pale grey spandrel ala Galleria
blitzraj1
New Member
It looks so ugly that another protest is required.
Also anyone opposed to the height of the building? It feels so out of place for the Canary District neighbourhood.
Also anyone opposed to the height of the building? It feels so out of place for the Canary District neighbourhood.
Dr. Snoot
Active Member
As planned, the whole site will be badly overbuilt, but Aspen Ridge has claimed they are required to build to the heights in the MZO.
I think part of the reason nobody is satisfied with the plans is that they're trying to put too much on a small site with heritage components. There are only so many ways you can divide up 95 storeys of building.
DSCToronto
Superstar
Friends of the Foundry say:
https://www.friendsofthefoundry.com/
Construction Schedule
- Planning/permitting for the rest of 2023
- Work on heritage structures begins summer 2024
- Unit sales begin spring 2024
- Excavation and construction begin spring 2025
- Complete by 2029
https://www.friendsofthefoundry.com/
malomick
New Member
I'm no architect, but I'd think anyone who appreciates landmarks like the OCAD tabletop and even the fantastic lobby/atrium of the Entertainment One building at Richmond and Peter would see huge opportunity for eye-catching architecture in this overhang of Building B along Palace St. And the larger consolidated courtyard space provides much more flexibility for quality public realm programming, compared to the fractured space of the current massing, .
everydayhim
Active Member
sure there's 'potential' but architecture cannot be looked at through such a simple lens. there are far too many considerations in how a building comes to be and the stakes involved, and in certain cases, some outweigh others and determine what kind of building we end up with. Some of these considerations:
- this is not going to be world class architecture, its a condo intended to attract investors and renters
- this is not a good architect with a proven track record of superior buildings
- this is a budget developer that has not done great buildings in the past and got this site through a shady deal
- this is not a budget heavy project
- this proposal is not cantilevered, its pilotis'd, this is a tremedous difference
- this proposed massing overhangs far too much on a site that will be starved for sunlight with three towers on it, and covers the only proposed open space with sunlight, in shade
artemperederii
Active Member
Application Details
www.toronto.ca
SPA resubmission with a height boost for Tower B from 18 to 31 storeys. Tower B now includes 282 affordable units while towers A & C remain 34 & 43 storeys with market residential.
Updated renderings:
Dr. Snoot
Active Member
Well, I see limited improvements like leaving the heritage building at Eastern/Rolling Mills untouched and creating a more contiguous open space at the eastern side of the site.
BUT, boy, living in the perma-shadow of what looks like a <10m separation distance between the 31-storey and 34-storey towers will not be fun. Thank god for the MZO on this property, saving us from the City's draconian livability standards.
BUT, boy, living in the perma-shadow of what looks like a <10m separation distance between the 31-storey and 34-storey towers will not be fun. Thank god for the MZO on this property, saving us from the City's draconian livability standards.
unrealestate
Active Member
so much potential on this site and such a low effort and depressing development. the towers look like shit
Amare
Senior Member
Sterile, bland, and uninspired.
This is the kind of bare-minumum trash that makes many areas of Toronto sorry and sad. The fact that the province went to the lengths it did, to get this outcome is embarrassing.
This is the kind of bare-minumum trash that makes many areas of Toronto sorry and sad. The fact that the province went to the lengths it did, to get this outcome is embarrassing.
HousingNowTO
Senior Member
Any details on those “282 affordable units”..?Application Details
SPA resubmission with a height boost for Tower B from 18 to 31 storeys. Tower B now includes 282 affordable units while towers A & C remain 34 & 43 storeys with market residential.
Updated renderings:
View attachment 668672
View attachment 668671View attachment 668675
View attachment 668676
View attachment 668677
View attachment 668673
View attachment 668674
View attachment 668678
View attachment 668679
- Unit Mix & Breakdown?
- How many years of affordability?
- What definition of “affordable rental” they are going to be using?
everydayhim
Active Member
man this is awful. how far apart are those towers? it cant be feasible to build to that tight degree of separationApplication Details
SPA resubmission with a height boost for Tower B from 18 to 31 storeys. Tower B now includes 282 affordable units while towers A & C remain 34 & 43 storeys with market residential.
Updated renderings:
View attachment 668672
View attachment 668671View attachment 668675
View attachment 668676
View attachment 668677
View attachment 668673
View attachment 668674
View attachment 668678
View attachment 668679