Toronto TeaHouse 501 Yonge Condominiums | 170.98m | 52s | Lanterra | a—A

The_Architect said:
Being in the middle of a boom is even more of a reason to expect some interesting designs! A boom doesn't have to mean Vancouver-izing Toronto, it could mean CityPlace exists, but adding an 8 Spruce Street! Imagine if this boom comes and goes, and we still don't have our landmark tower! We could end up waiting decades for a new one. There's been a lot of lost opportunity so far, and it would be a shame to end up without one.

Just my $0.02.
Click to expand...


being from TO, i originally thought of Cabbagetown but didn't think that was appropriate.

so i googled it ... pretty impressive for a rental building, albeit a luxury rental
 
Automation Gallery said:
Yeah, a strip mall in the city is unattractive and outdated, and im not a big fan of modern plain/cheap tall glass boxes.
Click to expand...

What exactly would have you assume a "glass box" is "cheap"? The general shape of the structure is not necessarily a significant cost escalator (unless unique shifting forming is required) and glass depending on what systems are used can be rather expensive. I get rather tired of constantly hearing the word "cheap" tossed around by many people that don't have the slightest idea what the hard construction (labour + materials), land, impositions and softs costs/budgets for these structures actually are and what the challenges/risks involved in the process are.

Average $psf is continuing to creep upwards in large part due to cost pressures and that is not necessarily a good thing for long-term housing affordability, economic competitiveness with other major cities and for our quality of life here in Toronto. We all want to see better buildings, but to suggest a twin 58s project on Yonge Street designed by experienced and highly respected architects (yes they are somewhat repetitive, but Peter does produce very high quality work) situated on a small site that went for nearly $40m is somehow going to result in a “cheap” outcome is hyperbole to the extreme.

Another question would be - should everything be "expensive" rather than "cheap" - should we only construct high-end buildings with curtain wall, limestone and granite to LEED platinum standards for those that can afford very significant cost premiums? Where will the rest of us live? Or should public policy allow greater flexibility to provide for affordable middle class housing in a range of communities in a variety of housing forms/types. There is a responsibility to always strive to do better, but I'd suggest we are doing pretty well.

What ultimately is perhaps the greatest benefit of the condo boom the last decade is not necessarily architecture (nor should that be the only policy objective), but the way that the condo boom has revitalized many communities in the city, filled restaurants, retail strips, cultural institutions, bars and increased office demand while providing urban housing options for thousands of middle class households in the city (both through ownership and through investors that have become the de facto rental market).
 
it begs the question whether this latest building boom that has been going on for 11 years now is making are city ugly. Glass glass glass. Thats all you see , just look at city place.
 
kd86 said:
it begs the question whether this latest building boom that has been going on for 11 years now is making are city ugly. Glass glass glass. Thats all you see , just look at city place.
Click to expand...

All the glass may be bland and somewhat amorphous, but I wouldn't call it ugly. That descriptor is more fitting for most of the buildings that went up in the '60s and '70s.
 
Perhaps, but the rise of PoMo and its continuation into the '90s is more offensive than the sea of generic apartments and offices built in the '70s. I blame the '80s and '90s for the explosion of historicist schlock and ugly podiums everywhere.
 
This isn't glass

media-efd7e9ed0e5e694ba6df444d84dfa37d.jpg
 
...and is the perfect of example of why it's too simplistic to try to reduce the argument to one strictly about the materials used, and not how they are used. Quality architecture can be achieved in a variety of styles, but the particular PoMo dreck above proves that merely moving away from glass boxes will not do the trick in improving this city.

42
 
This thread has gotten to be so indicative of the various opinions and tastes out there. I think that a lift of the PoMo stuff in Chicago :( is a bad idea. My overall impression of Chicago's downtown is that it is good, and exciting, but there is an enormous amount of recent stuff there (PoMo) that I don't like at all because it is contrived looking.

For my taste, glass is good, in the hands of Clewes. My fear of repetitiveness is perhaps justified, but I am preparing myself to be surprised, because his Toronto work shows great taste and I get the feeling that he can move along, and vary the styling.

"Burano on steroids" was used to describe the unseen proposal for 501. That description can mean something very good or something very bad. But let's not see a verbatim recycling of some other project design. Please.

Allow me to restate that a really strong presence on Yonge, at street level, is needed in this project.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top