Toronto 4800 Yonge Street | 168.24m | 49s | Menkes | Arquitectonica

Arquitectonica epitomizes Miami architecture and this is no exception. Replace the blockish office podium with a 12 floor parking garage and it be at home among Miami's high rises.
 
interesting orientation of the tower.
From certain angles the building looks monsterous while others it has a nice slim profile, but from a distance it has a tombstone-like quality due to the rounded top.
 
With its rounding and its subtle flaring out on the ends just above the podium, I see it more as shampoo bottle shaped.

42
 
definitely not liking the loss of office here, and the architecture proposed is anything but unique / iconic, the slab built form simply does nothing and offers no eye candy ...
 
With its rounding and its subtle flaring out on the ends just above the podium, I see it more as shampoo bottle shaped.
42

I like that comparison.
3d_model__shampoo_bottle_by_banette_one_and_only.jpg
 

Attachments

  • 3d_model__shampoo_bottle_by_banette_one_and_only.jpg
    3d_model__shampoo_bottle_by_banette_one_and_only.jpg
    40.3 KB · Views: 1,225
It's a really unique geometric form, not something we've yet seen in Toronto, I'll give it that. The cladding on the other hand, already hints of intense amounts of spandrel window wall. Didn't like the renders as well, talk about perspective distortion!
Look forward to seeing how this evolves from here...
 
Another example of the city screwing itself with the loss of employment land. I'm tired of Toronto blaming the OMB for losing employment land while the city constantly puts up pathetic and pitiful efforts to keep them zoned as is, without the inclusion of any kind of residential added to the area. We have seen this numerous times (ie: Humber Bay x 15, Celestica lands, and now this just to name a few).

Now the city will come back 5-10 years down the road and start finding ways to pin development and neighborhood growth issues on the OMB (although they do deserve a lot of the blame). This is honestly a silly game that has to end. When we talk about "planning" in the City of Toronto, that term really has to be used loosely because there really appears to be no form of planning whatsoever in anything that is done in this city.
 
I'm not sure what you're claiming is happening specifically.

As far as I know there is no resolution on the Mondelez lands at Humber Bay, nor the Celestica lands, as the City is trying to preserve them both for employment uses. Have I missed something?

Neither am I sure what you're claiming the City is doing on this site.

42
 
^Interchange is correct. Nothing has happened yet here. Not saying it won't be approved, but the mix here could change between office/res.

OT but how much would it cost to run the Sheppard subway over to Downsview. I never understood who would think developing heavy transit in low density Scarborough makes any sense, but it kind of does make sense to create connections between the east and west 1 line, doesn't it? I wonder if that would take any strain off of the Yonge line? (sorry for the OT)
 
As far as I know there is no resolution on the Mondelez lands at Humber Bay, nor the Celestica lands, as the City is trying to preserve them both for employment uses. Have I missed something?

42
You're definitely correct that nothing has changed in regards to the employments land designation at all 3 sites, apologies if I made it seem as though that it was the case.

I just feel as though when these kind of proposals come up and go through the process, the ultimate resolution that comes up is that we see some kind of split between residential and commercial uses for any piece land that was formerly zoned for employment use. Employment land should be kept strictly as employment land, and there shouldnt be any kind of provision to include any residential component to land zoned as such.

Generally though, the OMB-for lack of a better word- screws the city over consistently when it comes to employment land issues; however I also feel as though the city doesn't put its best effort forward to demand that employment land be kept the way it is.
 
Any lawyer, any planner, any expert witness sent by the City to the OMB to argue a case is obligated to do their best. I'd say that you may have a feeling that the City isn't trying hard enough, but I suspect that those who have had experience in the cases would not agree.

I think the problem is that the City argues that the land should remain as the same kind of employment—industrial in the Mondelez and Celestica instances—and that's why it has lost at times. The OMB weighs that against the Places To Grow Act which stipulates that we have to intensify, and the board sees that industrial land is typically quite land intensive for each job it supports. Retail and Office commercial employment land uses typically provide many more jobs per acre, and the OMB understands that as a way to accomplish intensification. Since you can provide more jobs in less space, that opens space for residential and other uses on the land.

In regards to the City wanting to preserve commercial office and retail zoning in the sub-centres, I get that, but development is not just a matter of planning concerns, it's a matter of economic forces too.

The business side of things goes like this: industrial firms can rarely afford to set up in the 416 now because of land prices and taxes, so these lands typically have a difficult time finding new owners to perpetuate the earlier land use. Instead we end up with owners seeking land uses that provide a greater return on investment, like residential, office space, and retail. Firms looking for office space are finding that their employees, especially younger ones, want to be located in the core. That's made it difficult (but not impossible) to find tenants for all of the office space that is proposed in the sub-centres around the city.

That's been evidenced on this very site, where a planned 25-storey office tower proposal has been sitting inert for years. Now a developer wants to maintain some office space, recognizing that the City won't support the complete removal of commercial office space from this site, while "paying" for the development through the sale of residential condos above.

Personally, I'm not opposed in principal to commercial-only zoning going mixed-use by adding residential. In this case I have no idea if the numbers in this first proposal are "right", or of there should be more commercial, less residential, what have you. That's for the City to figure out, and concerned citizens to voice their opinions on of course… and we will see how the numbers change (or don't) as the proposal progresses through the planning process.

42
 
I for one don't mind employment land disappearing in areas outside of the core. If anything won't that encourage more offices to relocate downtown? Therefore increasing the odds of the proposed office towers being built?
 

Back
Top