Toronto Canary Block Condos | 42.06m | 12s | DundeeKilmer | KPMB

[interchange42]

I don't think they do. They were having to insulate underneath balconies where a floor extended out under the one above (owing to the rotation). Somewhere back in my photo vault I have images of that…

42

 

[modernizt]

interchange42 is correct, there's nothing thermally broken about Absolute's balconies.

 

[Adjei]

Really? Did they not learn from the complaints?

AoD

This kind of nonsense is what is making all the buildings look the same and why we have areas like Southcore and Cityplace. We need more diversity in buildings, not less.

 

[Tulse]

That is a really boring design -- it's just a damned box sheathed in balconies. All the other buildings in the neighbourhood have far more interesting features. How one can have this when RC3 is rising up is beyond me.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Presentation from the Nov WT DRP:

http://www.waterfrontoronto.ca/uploads/documents/block_16___drp_presentation_nov_2016_1.pdf

AoD

 

[Tulse]

Seriously meh.

 

[jje1000]

Beveling the balcony cladding to produce the pattern rather than what they're doing now would make the project significantly more interesting.

 

[maestro]

I appreciate the consistent built form even though the design is on the bland side. Afterall, We've seen most masterplans evolve into taller, equally bland, towers. The use of similar coloured building envelopes doesn't bother me.The choice of Grey wouldn't be my favourite though.

 

[G.L.17]

So while scrambling down notes at the Waterfront DRP last week, it turns out three errors were made when we published the article on Friday. We updated the article to fix the errors, the first being the colour of the bricks (which was a big deal for a lot of people), the type of balcony treatment, and developer DundeeKilmer, a joint venture of Dream & Kilmer Van Nostrand, was mistakenly identified as Dream, formerly Dundee Realty Corporation.

Here is the updated article:
http://urbantoronto.ca/news/2016/11...-block-16-hits-waterfront-design-review-panel

 

[interchange42]

…so thank goodness they're going for a different colour of brick here! It'll be interesting to see how much gray fleck there is in the buff coloured brick, and how well that ties it to surrounding buildings (while still setting this one apart).

Meanwhile, the images in that pdf of the presentation which @AlvinofDiaspar linked in a post yesterday, are of a bizarrely low quality. I'm not sure how you make a pdf that bad. The result is that it's pretty hard to tell how the building will actually look based on this plan. I suppose we'll have to wait a few months for the more seductive high-quality marketing renderings to come out… and then of course the proof will be in the building of the thing a couple of years later.

Anyway, I'm much happier about this now than I was from Greg's initial report!

42

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Meanwhile, the images in that pdf of the presentation which @AlvinofDiaspar linked in a post yesterday, are of a bizarrely low quality. I'm not sure how you make a pdf that bad. The result is that it's pretty hard to tell how the building will actually look based on this plan. I suppose we'll have to wait a few months for the more seductive high-quality marketing renderings to come out… and then of course the proof will be in the building of the thing a couple of years later.

@interchange42 I suspect they wanted to emphasize the preliminary nature of the design - the PDF is likely from scanned copies of printed slides - and you don't do that (what a roundabout way) unless it is the intent to reduce the quality (or to assure the PDF is exactly the same as what's given out).

Having said that, it is a relatively small price to pay to having access to presentations that were otherwise not provided online previously. Recall a time when - other than showing up in person at a meeting - we would know nothing about the proposals other than by description in the minutes months later. That is still the norm with the city's DRP.

AoD

 

[Tulse]

I appreciate the consistent built form even though the design is on the bland side.

But it's not consistent with the rest of the built form, which uses multiple masses and negative spaces, rather than just a straight rectangular solid.

 

[maestro]

Okay, the height and general massing is consistent with the rest of the street. How often does that remain true in Toronto as plans are often revised for denser (taller) development? As far as design goes, I don't recall the Lemay Michaud buildings having multiple masses and negative spaces of any significance.

 

[Uncle Teddy]

No harm in mixing it up a bit.

 

[ilikemilk]

I don't think they do. They were having to insulate underneath balconies where a floor extended out under the one above (owing to the rotation). Somewhere back in my photo vault I have images of that…

42

You still need to insulate under where there is livable space that is exposed to the elements. Thermally broken balconies wouldn't remove that need. You'd still have a cold space above or below a warm space. Anyway, I'm 99.9% certain that they used thermally broken balconies on those 2 towers.