Toronto TeaHouse 501 Yonge Condominiums | 170.98m | 52s | Lanterra | a—A
- Thread starter VoiceofReality
- Start date
urbandreamer
recession proof
Ok so I listened to the resident nimbies and wonder what you think?
Looking NE from Yonge:
SE from Yonge:
Looking SW at east facade:
A closer look at the NE corner looking SW:
Massing study by NimbyTect for BoxDevCorp
--middle podium section would be 8s for scale ref
Looking NE from Yonge:
SE from Yonge:
Looking SW at east facade:
A closer look at the NE corner looking SW:
Massing study by NimbyTect for BoxDevCorp
--middle podium section would be 8s for scale ref
Last edited:
TonyV
Senior Member
I like your theme, ud, keep it going. You're on to something. Why can't architects think this way sometimes?
ProjectEnd
Superstar
Reality?
Mongo
Senior Member
Exactly how wide would those buildings be? I would guess the more narrow buildings might be 8-10 feet wide -- not exactly practical..
SP!RE
°°°°°°
But they are just facades... the rooms behind them could go beyond the width of the facades you see presented.
urbandreamer
recession proof
i'm thinking 15-20ft, mind you it could all be just a "facade"--ie made to look like they're unique buildings when in fact all just part of one giant slab with cutouts. (the massings you see aren't to precise scale.) but each retail unit on the narrow ones would be same width as your typical 100yo unit. the North corner unit with the angles walls is a nod towards the Victorians to the north--slope the walls in to protect view cone and shadows etc while also referencing the classic corner lots that have more ornamental details--so i'm thinking red brick with copper roof.
the south end otoh is solid larger units tying in to the larger blocks to the south.
the towers slope i hope mitigates shadows on that ugly parkette but retain simple form for economical reasons (it's toronto afterall.)
green roofs and all that stuff of course, perhaps partially accessible to the public from parking garage.
again parking is approx 4th-8th floor but with office use looking over yonge st--eyes on the street.
red brick, victorian proportions but totally modern. call it modVic
that's how i like it.
as for the theatre there--we all know they'll build a condo there sometime. let's hope it's modVic.
the south end otoh is solid larger units tying in to the larger blocks to the south.
the towers slope i hope mitigates shadows on that ugly parkette but retain simple form for economical reasons (it's toronto afterall.)
green roofs and all that stuff of course, perhaps partially accessible to the public from parking garage.
again parking is approx 4th-8th floor but with office use looking over yonge st--eyes on the street.
red brick, victorian proportions but totally modern. call it modVic
that's how i like it.
as for the theatre there--we all know they'll build a condo there sometime. let's hope it's modVic.
Last edited:
unimaginative2
Senior Member
Interestingly enough, that's what Toronto's professional planners wanted to do for several decades.
edit: Note that this is not in any way an endorsement of that bizarre and disturbing ex-forumer. More an attempt to make a point about how destructive planning fads can be, though they might seem wonderful at the time.
Though to be fair those Dickinson towers were better than most of what's in St. Jamestown.
Last edited:
SP!RE
°°°°°°
I've taken the idea of using a multi-facade effect (I've always been inspired by that style since the Waterloo Town Square project by First Gulf in Uptown Waterloo) and am working on a design that would be suitable for this type of site. When it's finished one day and rendered, I will post it here. Different colours of brick make up a ton of midrises of different massing styles, with two towers above/behind the site.
SP!RE
°°°°°°
This is where I'm starting from.
ham
New Member
Architects think this way... at least the european architects....
developer killing usually the good design
TonyV
Senior Member
SP!RE
°°°°°°
See, to some people, there is a reality outside of glass boxes. I know it's hard for you to believe, but there is so much more. I know you think very highly of how well-versed you are in neo-modernism, but if you spoke to an architecture prof at somewhere like Ryerson, you'd get a smack upside the head for being so narrow-minded.
You keep trying to foist your preferred aesthetic onto the rest of using arguments about design purity and functionality when in reality, it's just your opinion of these designs. Don't try to constrain all of us with such a narrow view of architecture in 2012. There's tons of us here who love neo-modernism but we also know when to ask for more.
Last edited:
Redroom Studios
Senior Member
Spire, you've been wrinting some very inspiring and well considered posts lately, so thanks for your contribution!
yes, indeed. variety is what makes the city an interesting place. the concern with many of is not simply individual buildings but the ever increasing numbers of a very specific style to the point where they are starting to predominate the skyline with very similar shapes and materials. The result leans towards a sterility. Give us more texture,please!
yes, indeed. variety is what makes the city an interesting place. the concern with many of is not simply individual buildings but the ever increasing numbers of a very specific style to the point where they are starting to predominate the skyline with very similar shapes and materials. The result leans towards a sterility. Give us more texture,please!
Last edited:
Dan416
Senior Member
my favourite part of your post....lol