Bad Bear
Active Member
omg how we dare to have different opinions??
Toronto Eight Cumberland | 170m | 51s | Great Gulf | a—A
- Thread starter urbandreamer
- Start date
omg how we dare to have different opinions??
Lenser
Senior Member
I like it. I must be a horrible person.
Filip
Senior Member
Ditto. I actually love the throwback to PoMo.
WislaHD
Superstar
I am really unimpressed with this building. I wouldn't mind if this was infill, but this is fronting Yonge Street.
stjames2queenwest
Senior Member
I like it as well. If it looks like the model I'd be happy.
67Cup
Active Member
If I interpret the renders correctly, the tower is, in fact, set back from Yonge, behind the heritage buildings. But you have just as much right to be "unimpressed" by it as I do to find it "reasonably attractive."
WislaHD
Superstar
Yes this is true, and in fairness the ground level does not look too bad.
Not like there is any character left in Yorkville capable of being saved anyway.
torontologist
Active Member
Not thrilled by the lane overhang... doesn't this violate the neighbourhood plan?
Tewder
Senior Member
... and yet there is. Cumberland, Yorkville Ave., Hazelton, Old York Lane... the urban parks and the scale of the narrow streets still hold their own against the mid-rises and towers that are defining the perimeter of the area even more sharply. Not a bad thing really, this is a very central downtown neighbourhood after all. If anything we are losing some of the shoddiness and brutal contributions of the 70s and 80s, which didn't add a lot of character anyway.
6 for redesign vs. 0 for refine at its first appearance at the Design Review Panel.
Many concerns re: separation distances with other buildings, encroachment on the laneway, relationship to the heritage structures, etc. We will see where it goes.
42
Many concerns re: separation distances with other buildings, encroachment on the laneway, relationship to the heritage structures, etc. We will see where it goes.
42
UrbanFervour
Active Member
Well, there you have it. High profile, highly-educated architects and designers think it's a stinker.
Filip
Senior Member
LOL - these are the same bunch of folks who voted 8-0 for refinement of 140 Yorkville (York Square) an even bigger clunker that is destroying some of the finest heritage-preservation architecture we have in the city.
This building is far less offensive.
Irishmonk
Senior Member
Too bad they don't have a retire and rehire option.
Cute, but that's not exactly what they said.
The bulk of the criticism on UT is in regard to the exterior expression, but the bulk of what was said at the DRP was in regard to size, shape, position on the site. It was suggested by one member that this building would work better as a sliver, I think suggesting that the floor plate be reduced to about 2/3s the size, but who knows if the developer could make the numbers work with that reduction. None of what is said at the DRP must be followed, but a collegial atmosphere typically prevails and the criticisms, especially when they are virtually unanimous, are normally factored into revisions to the design. Besides, I can foresee the Planning Department having a number of the same issues, and therefore the proponents have some challenges ahead of them as a trip to the OMB in this case would not be a walk in the park.
Anyway, I think it will be interesting to follow 8 Cumberland's evolution through the planning process, and how they will respond to concerns regarding the laneway intrigues me the most. All of the building that you see below is on private property, and in fact the property extends into the lane, which they are widening, but because the laneway is wider on the 1 Yorkville property to the north it looks like 8 Cumberland bridges over public space. The City wants a more inviting back lane system here, and some DRP members are definitely persuaded that the walkway should be more open to make the lane work better, so it was variously suggested that there should be no columns separating the lane and the walkway, (and that the building should therefore be cantilevered over it), that the building shouldn't be over the walkway, that another floor be taken out to make the walkway space taller, that there be some extraordinary sculptural detail here if you're going to go over the walkway…
Who knows how they will respond; they don't necessarily have to go with any of those suggestions, or they could combine some of them for a solution. It could be a couple months before we see the next iteration.
42
Attachments
Last edited:
It's not the DRP's place to say 'you must not build here', which to save the existing square is pretty much what would have to happen in that case. That is for other departments, agencies, etc., to attempt. The DRP is responding to a design as if something is going to be built, and trying to make the best out of it.
42