Toronto Market Wharf | 110.33m | 33s | Context Development | a—A

urbandreamer said:
People often forget it is the client, not the architect in the driver's seat. The conservative modernism of Toronto's Clewe's designs are a reflection of the conservative Toronto developers not the ambitions and design integrity of the architectural firm.
Click to expand...

Yes, the client is in the drivers seat, but the architect is often responsible for navigating.

urbandreamer said:
Clewes has stated in the media that he wishes Toronto would embrace more ambitious daring designs: there's a reason most of his work is in Holland.
Click to expand...

No, most of his work is here; aA has a curvy (= more daring) project in Holland. I don't see a reason why he couldn't do more curved work here, as there are lots of curved projects in this city too, like The Met, WaterPark City, WaterClub, some CityPlace, Windermere by the Lake, Marilyn. (Whose is the WindermereBTL tower anyway?)

urbandreamer said:
Toronto is slowly changing--for the better. Compared to the stunners I'm seeing on SSP's montreal forum though (for example 350 De Maisonneuve)--Aa's Toronto effort is cold and timid in comparison--a reflection of Toronto the Old (most developers are "old" men so naturally have old fashioned Toronto values.) Real expressive architecture may never have a home in Toronto; but within 100 years surely the effects of all the various immigrants will result in some more colourful buildings?
Click to expand...

I think it's happening faster here than you claim, and that Montreal is not so chock-a-block with stunners yet itself. Yes 350 De Maisonneuve is cool, and there are some other good ones, but much of what is going up in Montreal right now is dreck - see Le Crystal de la Montagne, Terrasse Versailles, Quartier Parisien, Le Gouverneur, Le Mont Latella, Le Simpson as examples - or simply average and inoffensive modern, like much of what gets built here. I certainly wish the business community here would embrace more radical designs in office towers - the suits here are dead stodgy - but we are getting expressive architecture here already, mostly in the cultural sector - the ROM's crystal, OCAD's tabletop - and now in the more creative industries - Alsop's Filmport offices for example.

urbandreamer said:
Context has a certain idea of what they want from Clewe's--something sophisticated but understated. It would be nice if some more younger architects were given a few commissions to design condos (Clewes must be over 50 by now--certainly looks rather old in his photo on Aa website; Stephen Teeple too is rather old.) Where are Toronto's under 35 architects?
Click to expand...

I'm glad for a restrained approach to modernism here if it keeps us from getting a Pudong skyline, but I would like to see more Alsops, more Behnisches, more Gehrys, better Fosterses, some Hadids, some Nouvels, some Rogerses, some Herzog and deMeurons, showing up here too. None of those architects are spring chickens any more either, but I don't think age has anything to do with it. It has to do with sensibilities, which (yes) can change over time in some people, but which don't so often in the real iconoclasts minds; these people have been evolving their particular take on break-the-box modernism over the years in innovative ways that continue to excite, while still remaining true to Modernism's less-is-more mantra.

That's not to say I don't want to see fresh faces making waves in the architectural marketplace here - I'm just not asking anyone to retire simply because of their age.

42
 
Interchange, I totally agree with your comments about Montreal. Montreal is not constructing stunning new buildings at breakneck speed. Most of what goes up there is pretty unremarkable. As you said, there's the odd looker, but for the most part it's pretty standard stuff.
 
Most architects start small. The early work that Clewes did was low rise rather than tall, at a time when Toronto wasn't building 50 storey condos anywhere. He hit his stride after the rules were changed - a happy confluence of opportunity and talent.
 
Proposed St. Lawrence condo raises eyebrows over height, contamination

From The Bulletin

2.1001514.1.jpg


http://www.thebulletin.ca/cbulletin...0625669502117013394&ctid=1000136&cnid=1001514


Residents of St. Lawrence Neighbourhood are of mixed minds after catching a glimpse of a new project that may soon drastically alter the urban landscape of the neighbourhood.

An application has been submitted by Context Development Inc. for a 46-storey condominium complex with 451 units, eight floors of retail space and street-level parking to be located at 18 Lower Jarvis, the site of an existing parking lot just south of the St. Lawrence Market.

Opinions expressed at the meeting in St. James’ Cathedral, attended by nearly 100 residents, were split, although there are still many hurdles to overcome. Parking, traffic, schools, and soil contamination were just a few of the concerns raised at the meeting.

The Sept. 24 meeting got underway with an introduction by Kyle Knoeck, senior city planner. Robert Glover, urban planner for the developr, explained the proposed concept.

Leslie Silver a director of the nearby David B. Archer Co-op, said,. “It’s going to stand out as considerably taller than anything else anywhere in this area,†adding that the development would have a considerable impact on traffic as well as sun and light to adjacent buildings. Her fervent observations were met with a round of applause.

Ray Bacquie of iTrans explained the extent of the traffic studies that were conducted and Glover spoke about the minimal effect that the complex would actually have with regard to sunlight.

A 7-year resident and business owner says from what she’s seen of other Context buildings, Mozo and Spire, that “they attract a certain resident and customer [who] are only going to enhance the area and help clean it up.â€

Local resident Ewa Jarmicka quite bluntly asked the panel: “Has anyone walked through the neighborhood thoughtfully, street by street to see what really matters here?†She would rather see an eight- or 10-storey building in a low-rise neighborhood.

City planners were unavailable at press time to explain why notices of the public meeting were not mailed to residents of Henry Lane Terrace.

That heavily populated street is just across the street on the east from the proposed condo complex. The city is required to notify landowners and residents within 120 metres of any proposed project for community consultation.

Robin, a 6-year area resident, said, “I actually think it’s a great project.†He feels that as more people have moved into the area over time, the community has changed. “There’s less crime, there’s less panhandling.â€

One resident expressed concern over schools. With an increase in new families and a lot of new children, there are only three schools within five minutes of the proposed new building that are filled to overflowing. “So where are these children going to go?†she asks.

Plans call for a 483 space, above-ground parking facility. The site of the original factory has caused concern regarding contamination of the deeper soil. Randy, a local resident is concerned about the danger of contamination.

The southern end of the proposed site borders on the CN rail tracks on land that was originally zoned for industrial factory use. The developer has applied to the city to increase the density and build a structure with mixed-use residential and retail spaces.

Howard Cohen, president of Context Development, said he was a city planner in the 1970s responsible for the St. Lawrence area, “So I think I’m pretty familiar with what gives it its character.â€

Context developed Radio City and Spire condos in Downtown Toronto. They specialize in the new trend towards “tall and skinny†towers which make maximum density use of the building footprint.

Glover concluded that the complex would be built to a high quality of architecture. A lot of thought has gone into details, like matching the masonry to the existing Crombie Park; living green walls of plants up to the second. floor height, green spaces and parks, and setting the tower well back towards the CN tracks.
 
When the St. Lawrence neighbourhood was planned, it was determined that mid-rise buildings made for a more successful neighbourhood than one with high-rise towers. No high-rises were built, and it is considered to have been a great success. Now, all the new developments in the area are going to be high-rise. I'm not sure why it makes sense to abandon a formula that has worked.

That being said, I think this building will probably be pretty successful. It may not be a masterpiece, but it looks rather better than average, and Context has a pretty good record of execution (at least for the exterior). It's not really at the centre of the community, and it is built right up against the rail corridor. The parking and traffic concerns are silly. The number of cars added will be insignificant, and every building is required to have far more parking spaces than it needs.
 
unimaginative:

When the St. Lawrence neighbourhood was planned, it was determined that mid-rise buildings made for a more successful neighbourhood than one with high-rise towers. No high-rises were built, and it is considered to have been a great success. Now, all the new developments in the area are going to be high-rise. I'm not sure why it makes sense to abandon a formula that has worked.
Click to expand...

It's probably safer to attribute the success of St. Lawrence to multiple factors beyond just general built form - like the socioeconomic mix (RGI, Coop, Mid to high end market), ground level design, proximity to existing urban areas/transit routes and built form mix. IMHO, I think it's safe to say that one can take the St. Lawrence template, insert high rises at strategic points and end up with an even denser and yet equally successful precinct. But of course, that's all hindsight - and the Reform era politics would have precluded that possiblity...

AoD
 
Well, this isn't much, but I just saw evidence of a little progress on this project cross my desk:

The City has given the proposed condominium tower here the address 1 Market Street, while the commercial condominium will retain the 18 Lower Jarvis address.

42
 
AlvinofDiaspar said:
It's probably safer to attribute the success of St. Lawrence to multiple factors beyond just general built form - like the socioeconomic mix (RGI, Coop, Mid to high end market), ground level design, proximity to existing urban areas/transit routes and built form mix. IMHO, I think it's safe to say that one can take the St. Lawrence template, insert high rises at strategic points and end up with an even denser and yet equally successful precinct. But of course, that's all hindsight - and the Reform era politics would have precluded that possiblity...

AoD
Click to expand...

I agree completely ! Especially so when new developments such as this are proposed for empty lots. Harm would only be done if an existing building were torn down to make way... bring this one on! I really like the way this will close in the south end of St Lawrence Market, blocking out the Gardiner and adding some great density. More people in the area can only be good for local business.
 
Dear Disgraced Lord Crossharbour, it's kind of funny to see a building not even as far east as Jarvis being described as 'east end': you can't get much more central than this locale.

Hope they're treating you okay in that jail.

42
 
urbandreamer said:
Where are Toronto's under 35 architects?
Click to expand...

The average age of Intern Architects in Ontario is a shocking 39!!
(an intern architect is someone who finished all their academic requirements but hasn't yet become a registered architect)
See more stats here: http://www.internarchitect.ca/
There are very few registered architects under 35 let alone established architects in that age that can get their own commissions..
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top