Toronto 50 Bloor Street West | 230.11m | 70s | Morguard Corporation | Pellow + Associates

myfive said:
I think because they don't need to. The Holt Renfrew Tower, if that's what it's called, will be excellent marketing already. They'll save the 90+ story tower for SW corner of Y&B...perhaps.
Click to expand...

Nah, add a few floors on this one to make it the Holts Tower and the tallest tower in Canada, and save the 100+ tower for Bloor.
 
If you look on the map it seems like there is a lot of parkland to the north of this location. I really hope this building wouldn't cast shadows and get thrown out because of it. our skyline could use something large to make the north end more interesting.
 
I wish it looked more like:

nimbytect17april2012hrt.png


100s, retail & a public square under the arch, 20s office tower on the west side, amenities on podium top and 100s tower on the east side.

What do you think?
 
Love the large arch at the base but the thing as a whole looks lopsided. Like you took a cartoon castle with battlements up top and commenced to pull the turret on the right up and way out of proportion. Doesn't help that the rendering is grey and the texture's there. Made me think of a toy castle right away.
 
^Yeah I've always liked castles. But from street level, this wouldn't really be noticeable and is in fact part of the design "statement." In this new screenshot, I've extended the office/retail tower eastward to include the current Holt Renfrew site. I've offset the roofline a bit as well.

nimbytect17april2012hrt.png


It's sort of an aA-style with a twist. Bolder I'd like to think.:)
 
I'll take that...;)

(I do want to do a to scale rendering, and get better rendering software to take my concepts further...maybe straight into architecture school?)

I used to sketch buildings all the time, back in art school esp I would do huge canvases with made up buildings.
 
@Urbandreamer: Your extreme exaggeration of (what you perceive to be) the negative effects of this proposal are seriously flawed. You have your opinion, and others have their own.
 
Of my proposal there is no negative effects--it is a grand gesture for the area. It says "holt renfrew shopping area is the most expensive in Canada" not like the current real elevations posted that implies "build it tall and as cheaply as possible without any real architectural effort."
 
urbandreamer said:
Of my proposal there is no negative effects--it is a grand gesture for the area. It says "holt renfrew shopping area is the most expensive in Canada" not like the current real elevations posted that implies "build it tall and as cheaply as possible without any real architectural effort."
Click to expand...

I'm quite confident that this remark is sarcastic and that your drawing aims to reveal the negative traits you see in the proposal, such as the obvious lack of any architectural detailing and increase in size in your drawing (which is SEVERELY exaggerated). Also, possibly attempting to bait others into (ironically) acknowledging shadowing issues by (again) SEVERELY exaggerating them.

'tis a good tactic, but the over exaggeration fails you.

This may not be the most architecturally pleasing structure in the world, and they may be seeking a large floor count, but it is nowhere near the gigantic featureless arch that you've depicted in your drawings.
As for the shadowing issues (if that is indeed your target), having a massive arch over an entire city block =/= shadowing a sliver of park land during 1% of sunlight hours.
 
Last edited:
My proposal is serious. Meaning that is what I would propose for the site had I money or connections with the developer. I don't play goofy games like 100s art deco knockoff tower here or whatever. The point isn't to highlight the height, but rather the posibilities of creating an interesting alternative to the podium problem. How can the massing at street level be broken down, become more interesting and/or dramatic, while staying within realistic budget constraints of your typical Toronto development. While shadows are important, that is not my main consideration in the arch. The arch simply looks good & is a creative solution--public space (check), breaks down the monolithic podiumism that is present in many Toronto projects (check), is eyecatching for such a prominent location (check) and elevates the thinking amongst the Toronto design/development industry (I hope ;))

For those that follow my twitter feed, you'll know that NimbyTect is no joke.

I try to post most of my ideas (really just simple massing studies created in the free version of google sketchup--not to be taken 100% literally--for now) here but sadly it doesn't look like it's a popular thread. :(

I am really hoping--like I'm doing with RenderPornStar--to elevate the overall architecture expectations of the Canadian public. I want ppl to think about good Canadian architecture everyday, just not once a year at some awards show.
 
Last edited:
marsh said:
I have mixed feelings about highrises. I agree that Bloor and Yonge can be appopriate for a highrise as it is a major intersection and hear of the city but to go back to of the other comments we need to think about highrises and intereaction with the community. Personally, I think Yorkville should remain low rise (and I fear it won't as encroachment is already happening with current and proposed devleopments). So will building highrise towers lead to further encroachment on Yorkville? I fear also cities need a diveristy of low rise and high rise neighbourhoods and as someone pointed out on earlier even NYC isnt all skyscrapers and some of the most vibrant neighbourhoods are lowrise.
Click to expand...

Does Yorkville, as a lowrise neighbourhood, really even exist any more? Take Scollard ( please! ), for instance. It's a parody of a street, botoxed and artificially enhanced and Wengleized beyond all recognition to what it once was.
 
urbandreamer said:
My proposal is serious. Meaning that is what I would propose for the site had I money or connections with the developer. I don't play goofy games like 100s art deco knockoff tower here or whatever. The point isn't to highlight the height, but rather the posibilities of creating an interesting alternative to the podium problem. How can the massing at street level be broken down, become more interesting and/or dramatic, while staying within realistic budget constraints of your typical Toronto development. While shadows are important, that is not my main consideration in the arch. The arch simply looks good & is a creative solution--public space (check), breaks down the monolithic podiumism that is present in many Toronto projects (check), is eyecatching for such a prominent location (check) and elevates the thinking amongst the Toronto design/development industry (I hope ;))

For those that follow my twitter feed, you'll know that NimbyTect is no joke.

I try to post most of my ideas (really just simple massing studies created in the free version of google sketchup--not to be taken 100% literally--for now) here but sadly it doesn't look like it's a popular thread. :(

I am really hoping--like I'm doing with RenderPornStar--to elevate the overall architecture expectations of the Canadian public. I want ppl to think about good Canadian architecture everyday, just not once a year at some awards show.
Click to expand...

Wow, I owe you an apology good sir :(

I was certain that your drawing was an attempt to mock this proposal. Honestly, seeing the massing makes it seem really farfetched. HOWEVER, if something like that were to ever actually be proposed in Toronto, I would be really impressed! To have such a unique and extravagant structure would certainly be fitting of a Holt Renfrew location, but I highly doubt that such a building would ever be allowed to go up with all the strict shadowing, height, vista, etc. issues that this city constantly brings up :( Sigh...one can dream though, I suppose. I'll be sure to visit your thread more often! Your massing is a really cool departure from the typical Toronto proposal!
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top