Toronto 88 Scott Street | 203.9m | 58s | Concert | P + S / IBI

If Monstrous Carbuncles we must have, then there's now logic to the placement of the Monstrous Carbuncles on the face of our much-loved friend.
 
So who exactly is responsible for the change to the top of this proposed building? A lot of people posting here seem to assume that it is the developer's fault, whereas others are suggesting that it's the City's own Design Review Board that is demanding the changes.

If it is the developer who has made the change without outside influence, then yes, they deserve the disgusted comments they are getting, but if it is the DRB, then posters here should lay off the comments about the developer and redirect their ire against the DRB.

If it is the Design Review Board that caused the change, then I can only assume that their mandate is to search for future projects with good design, and demand changes to the good design elements, making them into mediocre or bad design elements.
 
Last edited:
Mongo said:
So who exactly is responsible for the change to the top of this proposed building? A lot of people posting here seem to assume that it is the developer's fault, whereas others are suggesting that it's the City's own Design Review Board that is demanding the changes.

If it is the developer who has made the change without outside influence, then yes, they deserve the disgusted comments they are getting, but if it is the DRB, then posters here should lay off the comments about the developer and redirect their ire against the DRB.

If it is the Design Review Board that caused the change, then I can only assume that their mandate is to search for future projects with good design, and demand changes to the good design elements, making them into mediocre or bad design elements.
Click to expand...

After 10 York, i will place my bet that its the DRP demanding the changes.

The original design for the Ten York tower had a triangular “footprint” to correspond with the site. But the city expressed concern that the building was “too broad” on the east-west axis and “not a good fit with the neighbouring buildings,” Wallman says. “They thought a more compact, square-shaped building would be more appropriate.”
http://www.thestar.com/article/10914...the-waterfront
 
Ramako said:
I wonder if the design change was in response to the recommendations of the Design Review Panel: http://www.toronto.ca/planning/pdf/design_review/drp_meeting_minutes_18oct11.pdf
Click to expand...

officedweller said:
I suspect that the "grand gesture" rather than blending in with the neighbours - was the conversion of the stepped "crown" (addressing all sides) with a sharper "prow" that has a front and back and tends to be more contemporary.
Click to expand...

WiddleBittyKitty said:
It's not Planning Department staff that requested the change, it was the Design Review Panel. First submission to the panel was on October 18th. Is there a chance that these revisions will go back to the DRP on February 13th for further comment? Maybe there is the possibility to undo the mistake happening here.
Click to expand...

gristle said:
It's clear that the developer has built its entire marketing plan on the original design. There has been no alteration to the rendering in any of the promotions anywhere.
Click to expand...

It does seem to be the case that it was the Design Review Panel that stepped in and changed the building top. This is not the first time that they have done a hatchet job on a proposed design.
 
Last edited:
Automation Gallery said:
After 10 York, i will place my bet that its the DRP demanding the changes.

The original design for the Ten York tower had a triangular “footprint” to correspond with the site. But the city expressed concern that the building was “too broad” on the east-west axis and “not a good fit with the neighbouring buildings,” Wallman says. “They thought a more compact, square-shaped building would be more appropriate.”
http://www.thestar.com/article/10914...the-waterfront
Click to expand...

In the case of Ten York, it was the Planning Department, as was stated in that thread. The department did not want what would appear as a slab from the north or the south blocking so many views to the lake or the core. It was subsequently discovered that wind loads on a tall triangular tower would have required a much more strongly built structure anyway, so Tridel dodged a bullet by acceding to that request.

42
 
Last edited:
Mongo said:
It does seem to be the case that it was the Design Review Panel that stepped in and changed the building top. This is not the first time that they have done a hatchet job on a proposed design.
Click to expand...

Well, for my part, I'm not a fan of either design. Only time will tell if such a change is an improvement or an error. As Urban Shocker has alluded, the true measure of success is how well this addition will work with existing structures.
 
Peer reviews of design, be they architectural or otherwise, aren't about trashing a person's work and imposing something entirely new. I think of such critiques as, primarily, a process that prevents bad things from happening. For instance, the Monstrous Carbuncles are still an impossible-to-ignore element of 88 Scott as revised, it's just that they're no longer fighting the rest of the design and have been integrated. Take another example, Aura, which may not be the best highrise design in Toronto either, but design review whipped it into better shape than it was originally - it wasn't their mandate to change it entirely and make it look like Casa or something. Whoever's responsible for this revised design appears to have done a similar service by working with what was given, tidying it up and making it consistent.
 
Urban Shocker said:
Peer reviews of design, be they architectural or otherwise, aren't about trashing a person's work and imposing something entirely new. I think of such critiques as, primarily, a process that prevents bad things from happening. For instance, the Monstrous Carbuncles are still an impossible-to-ignore element of 88 Scott as revised, it's just that they're no longer fighting the rest of the design and have been integrated. Take another example, Aura, which may not be the best highrise design in Toronto either, but design review whipped it into better shape than it was originally - it wasn't their mandate to change it entirely and make it look like Casa or something. Whoever's responsible for this revised design appears to have done a similar service by working with what was given, tidying it up and making it consistent.
Click to expand...


Consistent? They have lessened a potentially beautiful design by making changes that force the building into the mundane. Sad.
 
I noticed while travelling on the subway that there were many adds at stations for this development showing the original rendering that we have all seen and prefer.
 
Are we preparing outselves for something like this in the end:

aquablu-bg.jpg

P&S/IB's Aquablu in New Jersey.
 
The original design was like a bad Phillip Johnson imitation. Plus carbuncles. Maybe even an imitation of that guy who did all the Hyatts. A limp pastiche of earlier styles in substandard materials. I thought we'd ridiculed that kind of thing into oblivion. But I guess nobody ever went broke underestimating the taste of the condo buying public.

Just my two cents.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top