Toronto Alaska | 30m | 10s | Bianca Pollak | aLL Design

I agree that context is very important. That doesn't mean it has to be conservative or schlocky, just respect for taxp...err nimbies ... um you know ... NimbyTecture.

In some ways--I love this design btw, I do love the provocative nature of it as well--this design is no different than building a mcmansion--it just doesn't "fit."

I look at a ton of renderporn from around the world--the successful stuff cheekily plays off the historic context while the tacky stuff sticks out as "wrong."

A good architect doesn't get fixated on one design idea: Mr Alsop (& your client)--are you willing to rise to the nimby challenge?
 
Last edited:
Ugh, this fight will be my jurisdiction. I hope the NIMBY's are ready for this hotheaded Lawrence Park YIMBY
 
The problem with this proposal--and here Nimbies are absolutely right--is if it gets approved the entire area will be redeveloped, likely ruining the unique character of the strip (why not ruin the ugly stuff first--like those strip plazas on Bathurst, Dufferin etc?)
 
urbandreamer said:
why not ruin the ugly stuff first--like those strip plazas on Bathurst, Dufferin etc?
Click to expand...

Probably because they don't own those properties? C'mon UD you know these things. That strip of Yonge already has a collection of mid-rises. Most are red brick but a few are just crappy red brick veneer. Plus, this isn't exactly going to be precedent setting like the Lanterra project a few blocks north. The look of this area has been changing for years, and as a local resident, I think that the "unique character" is embodied mostly by the post-war houses which line the tree filled side streets. Aside from the old brick apartments, the old hydro building and the Glengrove Suites, it is mostly lowbrow architecture with relatively bland retail.

Getting this built will be a positive thing for this area. For the locals, dissent is just a knee-jerk reaction
 
Last edited:
Regarding the community petition: it's great to see people who want to have input on their community, and it's interesting to see a community that hasn't faced recent development applications deal with it. The Nimbyism here is kind of cute. It's a total amateur hour show - safety is one of three main concerns? What kind of safety? Cars? The horrors of condo dwellers? Not white people?

They are concerned about the condo parking exit on Strathgowan which is a dead end street, which presumably means it does not get much traffic. Moving the exit to Yonge would cause far more damage to congestion than there.

I suppose talking about "character" implies height, but height is not mentioned as an issue, which is interesting. There is a 7 storey building (kind of) across the street, so there is some height precedent there.

Compared to the Ossington community (which is completely and absurdly up in arms over 6 storeys and even produced their own planning report opposing it), these folks have a ways to go.

The Lorinc article on community consultation in the most recent Spacing issue is a good read and talks a bit about the things the community does have some control/input over and what they don't.
 
3108 Yonge was a little different because it was next to some already quite tall apartments and across from a major park. But it's not like Yonge and Strathgowan isn't surrounded on all sides by mid-rise apartments and institutional buildings like the power substation. This project makes a lot of sense, and honestly there's not much to wreck on this block. Those poor retail units just north of Sporting Life could use a bit more foot traffic. They seem to last about 6 months until the next concept store comes along (expensive baby clothes, big & tall, eBay reseller, paintball equipment, etc, etc). I do wonder if this is approved what will happen to the rent-a-car lot across the street.

And honestly, the post-war house in these neighbourhoods are often replaced by modernist slate and wood cubes whenever the 70 year olds move out. Better that then the humungous herringbone brick monstrosities you see on Alexandra and Glencairn (which are themselves, admittedly, better than the stucco faux-Georgians you saw put up in the late 90s. Stone pineapples for everyone!)
 
I would hate to live in a city where you must build what is already in the area. Holy monotony! Bring me different. Bring me unique. Bring me something that stands out.
 
Wrenkin said:
And honestly, the post-war house in these neighbourhoods are often replaced by modernist slate and wood cubes whenever the 70 year olds move out. Better that then the humungous herringbone brick monstrosities you see on Alexandra and Glencairn (which are themselves, admittedly, better than the stucco faux-Georgians you saw put up in the late 90s. Stone pineapples for everyone!)
Click to expand...

This made me laugh, well said!
 
khristopher said:
I would hate to live in a city where you must build what is already in the area. Holy monotony! Bring me different. Bring me unique. Bring me something that stands out.
Click to expand...

It's horrible that it is not just an attitude, it is an official policy of Toronto's planning department.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top