Toronto Yonge and Scollard | 167.5m | 49s | Cityzen | KPMB

[Ramako]

I like the design. Reminds me of aA's Brant Park. I don't see why the height would be a problem here. This is a major node.

 

[ThomasJ]

Very curious to see images, sounds like it will be a sliver. The property is pretty small and if its 26,213 m2 in total thats less than 445 m2 a floor at most. 3 ish units a floor?

37.1 x coverage. what a joke.

 

[Ramako]

37.1 x coverage. what a joke.

I couldn't care less about what the coverage is so long as there is a healthy number of 2 and 3 bedroom units. We'll see...

 

[ca$hflow]

I like the design. Reminds me of aA's Brant Park. I don't see why the height would be a problem here. This is a major node.

I think height should step down from 1 Yorkville but otherwise agree it's a good use of the site.

How will they handle parking though?

 

[raptor]

I think height should step down from 1 Yorkville but otherwise agree it's a good use of the site.

How will they handle parking though?

There are precedents of condos without parking.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

There are precedents of condos without parking.

In this case they do have it - by parking elevator and movable storage system - from the Architectural Plans:

The building reminds me of 432 Park Avenue in NYC.

AoD

 

[Automation Gallery]

There are precedents of condos without parking.

I guess they will be hard pressed to get a 230 meter bldg here, but then you never know

 

[Biljet]

From Urban Design Brief Doc: Resident and visitor vehicle parking is provided in 6 underground parking levels. The building contains a fully automated parking system, with capacity for 189 vehicles. Of these spaces, a total of 168 are for resident vehicle parking, and 21 are for visitor vehicle parking.

 

[interchange42]

The forest bowl is fascinating. Not sure that it's entirely unproblematic with squeezed space at its base, but I do love its boldness. I also love the fact that it would replace the truly under-delivered parkette that we got there just a couple of years ago. That said, the City is not a fan of developers proposing their own public park makeovers when looking for rezoning for their buildings. The City sees it as the developer trying to influence a positive response from the locals, when they want the buildings graded on their own merits first, with park and other public realm improvements to be discussed only after they are happy with the building proposal.

42

 

[Waterloo_Guy]

That said, the City is not a fan of developers proposing their own public park makeovers when looking for rezoning for their buildings. The City sees it as the developer trying to influence a positive response from the locals, when they want the buildings graded on their own merits first, with park and other public realm improvements to be discussed only after they are happy with the building proposal.

42

If the City is so opposed to it, it suggests that perhaps this strategy is sometimes effective in winning over locals. As a developer I would do the same thing.

 

[innsertnamehere]

It can backfire, it depends entirely. I once saw a developer show how they had considered a proposed pedestrian bridge beside their property and how to integrate it into their proposal (the king high line and 26 Sudbury), and the locals yelled at him about trying to entice them with unfounded community infrastructure. Meanwhile all the developer was trying to do was to ensure the bridge could be accommodated in the case that it was built.

 

[Ramako]

I think height should step down from 1 Yorkville but otherwise agree it's a good use of the site.

I disagree. As far as I'm concerned, as long as a site is within walking distance of a major transit node (which it is), there shouldn't be a limit on height or coverage.

 

[A Torontonian Now]

The bowl of trees reminds me of this sculpture in Ottawa:

https://www.google.ca/maps/@45.4182...dPoac0UY6KNk3c0qNQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1

Of course, the proposed bowl is bolder, but I've enjoyed the Ottawa tree sculpture ever since it went in. Bonus: the tree rotates.

 

[Northern Light]

I've given the matter some thought. The Bowl of Trees must go.

Its not that it looks bad per se.

My concern is the quality of the public space around it.

The rendering as illustrated removes all seating or any other opportunity to use the area as anything other than a 'through space'.

The bowl is shown at such a height that most people IN the space won't actually get to enjoy the trees at all, they'll only see the bowl material.

What you gain as an interesting view from the east side of Yonge, you surrender in terms of spacial quality on the west.

This also won't provide any useful shade, unless one is standing directly against the west side of the bowl in the early morning, or the east side in the evening.

 

[ADRM]

Love. Love the density. Love the bowl (reminds me of the Chicago bean, which has become a tourist must-see - though I agree about seating in the surrounding parkette). Design is nice enough (if a little disjointed in parts) and teases nice materials (yes, I know that's very subject to change). And I like that it seems to play nicely off of Foster-to-be down the street on Scollard.

I live in the neighbourhood and will be a vocal anti-NIMBY force on the density concerns (there will be loud cries about this one, no doubt about it). I don't think there's a strongly defensible reason to oppose a very dense use of this lot.

Also very interesting/cool to see that neighbourhood-ish-wide render (although it must represent an old height for the One, right?), including Foster on Scollard, 8 Cumberland (though I gather that'll change), 1 Yorkville, and what I think must be either 50 or 80 BSW (among others down Yonge). Nice to see the area filling out (or as it will be in 5-10 years).