Toronto 64 Prince Arthur | 46.1m | 13s | Forgestone | RAW Design

[interchange42]

This is the avant garde kind of building where the developer goes out of the way to hire starchitects from another city, charges the moon for the suites, and then builds something that raises their visibility in the city and creates a retain for themselves. Whyever would they value engineer this building? That would make zero sense. You don't piss off people spending $3 million and up for their new pad in the sky.

42

 

[interchange42]

Adi's laser was amongst those to speak early at the meeting tonight, answering a question about why this has gone to the OMB already. The answer is what we've been expecting: the law firms are telling their clients to appeal now so that the proposals can be run through a system that everyone understands. No-one really knows how everything will settle under Bill 139, so if you have a chance to preclude that, you do.

The lawyer also stated that the appeal is not going to stop the building plan from evolving as need be, and that three planning process will continue.

42

 

[maestro]

This is the avant garde kind of building where the developer goes out of the way to hire starchitects from another city, charges the moon for the suites, and then builds something that raises their visibility in the city and creates a retain for themselves. Whyever would they value engineer this building? That would make zero sense. You don't piss off people spending $3 million and up for their new pad in the sky.

42

Stararchitects?

Value engineered , ugly exteriors/ exterior designs hasn't prevented people from buying $3 million dollar pads in Toronto before.

It's different from the usual box. Does that really make it that much better to throw planning policy out the window? To add, planning policy that is built on precedence and doesn't "bonus" exceptional design.

 

[stjames2queenwest]

Yes. I say throw out planning and build this. Is it wrong to want nice things? Especially nice things near the subway.

 

[maestro]

Nice is subjective. Regardless, the point I was making is that we don't have a bonusing structure that applies to design. Allowing this also opens the door for Graziano + Corrazza to put forth another variation of YC of similar density and height for one of their clients. How does that fulfill the community or your desire for nice things if this becomes hidden behind the usual sameness but at less than ideal densities?

 

[LMVDR]

Stararchitects?

Value engineered , ugly exteriors/ exterior designs hasn't prevented people from buying $3 million dollar pads in Toronto before.

It's different from the usual box. Does that really make it that much better to throw planning policy out the window? To add, planning policy that is built on precedence and doesn't "bonus" exceptional design.

The only thing exceptional about this too tall tower is how out of place and disturbingly offensive it is to the community it surrounds. Developer should have ponied up for a bigger site on a main street or avenue if they wanted to make a splash in Toronto with their "stararchitect" ( who would probably be let go once they get zoning and replaced by a cheaper local firm). Instead they probably overpaid for a tight site on the first street into a prized residential neighborhood and are literally trying to cram this fantasy render down the throat of the area (and bypass the planning dept and the Councillor) that doesn't want it, complete with a nice extended shadow on a high value park. What's next- assemble the townhouses on Lowther in 2019 and punch up 25 stories because you know they got 29 on Prince Arthur in 2018?

Doesn't belong here and will not be approved.

A midrise project that doesn't increase shadows or perhaps some brownstones would be ideal here though.

 

[ProjectEnd]

Stararchitects?

Value engineered , ugly exteriors/ exterior designs hasn't prevented people from buying $3 million dollar pads in Toronto before.

It's different from the usual box. Does that really make it that much better to throw planning policy out the window? To add, planning policy that is built on precedence and doesn't "bonus" exceptional design.

Sure, design bonusing isn't incentivised but, if imperfectly, proximity to transit is:

I didn't love how things were handled at the meeting tonight or, throughout this entire application. But if we can't put a taller building in the above location, I'd push to have the policy, not the opposition to it, reexamined.

 

[ProjectEnd]

Your embarrassing ham-fistedness doesn't quit, does it big guy?

The only thing exceptional about this too tall tower is how out of place and disturbingly offensive it is to the community it surrounds.

Snooze.

Developer should have ponied up for a bigger site on a main street or avenue if they wanted to make a splash in Toronto with their "stararchitect" ( who would probably be let go once they get zoning and replaced by a cheaper local firm).

That's not the way development works. Should Adi have bought this site? That's up to them and is purely their gamble to make.

And "bigger site on main street" aren't a dime a dozen the way they were even ten years ago. Assemblies are expensive, time consuming propositions. With the extraordinarily prohibitive planning policy we currently have in place (by-laws, OP, 'guidelines'), bigger gambles like this are inevitable.

The last piece is a goofy, unfounded aspersion. Even the AoR is CORE who aren't nearly the bottom of the barrel as things go locally.

Instead they probably overpaid for a tight site on the first street into a prized residential neighborhood and are literally trying to cram this fantasy render down the throat of the area (and bypass the planning dept and the Councillor) that doesn't want it, complete with a nice extended shadow on a high value park.

It's not difficult to figure out what Adi paid here. Also, how do you "literally" cram a computer-generated image down the "throat" of a neighbourhood?

What's next- assemble the townhouses on Lowther in 2019 and punch up 25 stories because you know they got 29 on Prince Arthur in 2018?

I'm absolutely fine with that. When can we start?

Doesn't belong here and will not be approved.

A midrise project that doesn't increase shadows or perhaps some brownstones would be ideal here though.

Snooze.

 

[maestro]

An argument can be made a tower half the height/density ... lower than it's neighbour's... is still supportive to transit oriented development. Proximity to station is a weak excuse to throw a neighbourhood's context out the window.

It's just a New York firm. That doesn't make them stars. They're interior designers for crying out loud.

 

[ProjectEnd]

Agreed on the love for the architects. It is funny that to many in NYC, Cetra Ruddy is their Kirkor / G+C etc.

And to your first point, I'd say that proximity to transit actually does trump 'neighbourhood context'. Unfortunately, we've been painfully stingy (and downright stupid) when it comes to new transit spending (or lack thereof), it makes far greater densification around existing stations inevitable.

In our core, I actually value the small scale and pedestrian cadence of our east west 'Avenue' high streets (Bloor, College, Dundas, Queen, etc) far more than the residential streets running north south. I'd actually reorient planning policy to save exactly those streets that are targeted for intensification at the expense of the 'neighbourhoods' we trip over ourselves to preserve.

 

[Johnny Au]

Sure, design bonusing isn't incentivised but, if imperfectly, proximity to transit is:

I didn't love how things were handled at the meeting tonight or, throughout this entire application. But if we can't put a taller building in the above location, I'd push to have the policy, not the opposition to it, reexamined.

Alternatively, it's possible to enter OISE from Prince Arthur and enter St. George station inside OISE.

I've done it numerous times.

 

[buildup]

The only thing exceptional about this too tall tower is how out of place and disturbingly offensive it is to the community it surrounds.

In fact, the precise opposite is true! You have managed to be perfectly incorrect.
It's completely 'in place', between two existing apartment blocks, is not too tall, and is an exceptionally fine tower.

 

[interchange42]

It's just a New York firm. That doesn't make them stars. They're interior designers for crying out loud.

"For crying out loud"? Please. They are architects and interior designers, but is there some bizarre, misplaced snobbery in your question, or did you just do a poor research job?

Agreed on the love for the architects. It is funny that to many in NYC, Cetra Ruddy is their Kirkor / G+C etc.

Hmm, that's ill-judged. They have some more average buildings, sure, but they also have a pile of beautiful designs that lots of UT members would be thrilled to have in Toronto (including this one, I'd say—not that I'm convinced of 29 storeys here, not sure what height I'd peg this a yet…).

Anyway, CetraRuddy-wise, line 'em up for some more Toronto projects if I can have some of this voluptuous sidewalk presence somewhere here please:

Lincoln Square Synagogue Source

Or if Toronto were more tropical I'd be happy with some of this simple but vibrant geometry on the skyline…

LA Residential Tower Source

Anyway, we have a compelling design here, and I hope that by the time it gets its approvals, it still looks something like this:

42

 

[Irishmonk]

I really don't get what's so irresistibly marvelous about this architecture. And I doubt that the condo will reliably look like the rendering. How can anyone be so sure that it won't be 'value engineered', since that seems to be one of the main arguments for it?

It's a luxury, high profile project designed by an award winning--and expensive--international firm. Makes no sense to bring in a flashy firm and then dumb it down to local hack IBI-type standards.

 

[maestro]

Agreed on the love for the architects. It is funny that to many in NYC, Cetra Ruddy is their Kirkor / G+C etc.

And to your first point, I'd say that proximity to transit actually does trump 'neighbourhood context'. Unfortunately, we've been painfully stingy (and downright stupid) when it comes to new transit spending (or lack thereof), it makes far greater densification around existing stations inevitable.

In our core, I actually value the small scale and pedestrian cadence of our east west 'Avenue' high streets (Bloor, College, Dundas, Queen, etc) far more than the residential streets running north south. I'd actually reorient planning policy to save exactly those streets that are targeted for intensification at the expense of the 'neighbourhoods' we trip over ourselves to preserve.

A mid-market tower with units sizes and floor heights to match would be more advantageous to the proximity to transit and also be a good 30 metres shorter.