Toronto CampusOne Student Residence (was University Place) | 79.85m | 25s | Knightstone | Diamond Schmitt

The UofT has nothing to do with this building, it's being privately built.

The City of Toronto 1) needs more power to be able to refuse buildings based on cladding plans, and 2) will hopefully learn from the massing here that strictly following tall buildings guidelines on odd-shaped lots is going to produce very odd-shaped buildings…

and 3) it's always my favourite to see an architect run down when there's no mention of the client, you know, the people who actually decide the budget and program.

42
 
I believe that this building—on a rather irregularly shaped lot—fits various stepbacks required by the tall buildings guidelines. I think that the final GFA was determined that way too: what fits on this property while respecting the new guidelines.

Surprise surprise, the guidelines, only written with 'good planning' in mind, have nothing to do with producing a good piece of architecture. Those are far harder to create with a system where mathematical formulas trumps all else.

I would expand the power of the DRP to reject or direct plans. (New provincial legislation would likely be required.) I would require that developers present more fully fleshed-out renderings of the building in a detailed context. (With the 3D models of the city that have been created it should not be difficult to fully explore a massing model from virtually any local vantage point.) I would have a minimum fenestration requirement for each major room on an outside wall, something that would at least double the amount of windows on these walls.

Architects and developers wouldn't want the straightjackets placed on them, but if we cannot stop atrocities like this with the current system, then the system has to change, somehow.

42

I am almost certain this exceeds the guideline's maximum floorplate of 750m^2.


I believe the city is requiring coloured elevations in site plan applications now for material review - though I'm not sure how much power they have to request changes.
 
Can you imagine Toronto Planning pulling a Wall Centre? I can't.

AoD

The city would see the elevations before construction begins in any case, though the planners have much say (or interest in / understanding of) re: cladding materials at the end of the day.
 
The city would see the elevations before construction begins in any case, though the planners have much say (or interest in / understanding of) re: cladding materials at the end of the day.

True but I think Vancouver did too - there was an agreement between the city and the developer on the tint but it turns out the reality wasn't as described - from the Canadian Architects piece of Busby:

Not every project has been so easy to walk away from, though, nor has the “right thing to do” always been so unambiguous. The first major project of his career, Vancouver’s Wall Centre tower, was also the most controversial. After construction commenced, the glazing turned out to be much darker than what the City of Vancouver believed it had agreed to as part of a complex negotiation for additional building height. Busby defended his role, and that of his client, but many of his colleagues believed he had deferred too much. To those familiar with the project, it was clear that in his client, Busby had encountered a personality even more forceful than his own–to his potential destruction.

The ensuing scandal temporarily threatened everything he had worked for, and darkened a moment that should have rightfully been nothing but glorious, his debut on the national stage as a major player. During this time, he projected the aura of a man defeated, or nearly so. As part of my interview for a National Post story on this subject, I relayed some of his peers’ armchair admonitions that he should have relinquished the Wall Centre project rather than condone any perceived sleight of hand (or sleight of eye). He was not defensive but wearily resigned: What purpose would it serve for him to walk away from the project, he replied, when there is so much left to do that only his firm could accomplish? It was a saga right out of Lord Weary’s Castle, with Busby grappling against the light or against the dark, depending on your perspective.

The resulting compromise of dark glass on the bottom third of the tower and light glass on the top two-thirds seemed like a Pyrrhic victory to some, a Solomonic decision to others. For Busby, it was Nietzschean: the Wall fiasco could have killed him professionally, but he survived it, and it made him stronger.

As with many great sagas, this one ended in great achievement with nobody much caring in the end who might have been the bad guy. The Wall Centre was a turning point not only in Busby’s own career but also in Vancouver’s urban identify. More than any other building of its time, it raised the shamefully low bar of architectural quality in fin-de-siècle Vancouver.

In a final bit of irony, the current city council recently acquiesced to the developer’s renewed insistence on dark glass, citing environmental reasons.[...]

https://www.canadianarchitect.com/features/fighting-spirit/

Definitely don't see Toronto having that much chutzpah - actually getting a developer to change it halfway through (however unwise that turned out to be, given the outcome)

AoD
 
From the AGO:

IMG_1335.jpg


42
 

Attachments

  • IMG_1335.jpg
    IMG_1335.jpg
    229 KB · Views: 269
Agreed. I am still waiting for a picture that is somewhat complimentary. But alas, it only looks worse in every subsequent photo. And the fact that it's size is so dominate, does not help.
 

Back
Top