Toronto College Park Redevelopment | 344.29m | 96s | GWL | Hariri Pontarini

[lmr2]

Not right now, but things will bounce back and hopefully this is one of the proposals that gets built.

Hopefully before the finance department start the Value Engineering™ process.

 

[mcbg1]

I mean is this even going to get built in current...market conditions.

Maybe in 10-15 years

 

[Koops65]

Phase 1 is supposed to be rental, so it can proceed without the usual sales threshold.

 

[Koops65]

Link to HD render

 

[UtakataNoAnnex]

Better hurry and build 'em so that the Aura can be blocked from the north view...

 

[travis3000]

The two tallest towers here are likely 15 years away from completion. This is a long game. The shorter (233m) tower should move ahead fairly quickly given its a rental.

 

[DarwinP]

The towers are all forgettable and nothing remarkable or iconic, but what they’re doing to the heritage base is so impactful I give it all a pass as it is. Give us at least a 9-10m bump for the tallest tower and make it Toronto’s next tallest building and we got a winner.

 

[Lenser]

Regardless of the projected timelines, this feels a bit unfinished. Agreed that the two shorter towers are perfunctory, nothing more - whereas the massing on the tallest tower, for all of its tiny details, feels a bit fussy and over-designed.

 

[Strange Advance]

Phase 1 is supposed to be rental, so it can proceed without the usual sales threshold.

If only the tallest were Phase 1 and started right away, to circumvent a lull in skyscraper construction.

Regardless of the projected timelines, this feels a bit unfinished. Agreed that the two shorter towers are perfunctory, nothing more - whereas the massing on the tallest tower, for all of its tiny details, feels a bit fussy and over-designed.

I think "perfunctory" is harsh. These towers are more inspired and intricate than most Toronto proposals, and there's a certain grandeur to the three of them standing tall together. The reorganization of heights and buildings is odd, as very little has changed from the previous iteration. I like these towers very much, though I do agree that, upon closer inspection of the renders, the setbacks are a bit indiscriminate (they look their best in koops's renders above). But any skyscraper with setbacks is almost invariably better than one without, imo.

 

[UtakataNoAnnex]

...the proposal if they go through as is are way better designed than anything around there. And assuming they use materials that are needed to hit this all home.

I am not saying it's perfect either, but it's of a caliber and class that's not been seen since Mr. Eaton decided to move forward with the original proposal here, IMO.

 

[ProjectEnd]

Is it just me or has this disappeared from the AIC?

 

[reinventingthewheel]

Is it just me or has this disappeared from the AIC?

Known link is redirecting home in new AIC.

 

[dougtoronto]

I will chime in with my annoyance at the fact that they envision the hotel component of this development being a boutique hotel, which usually means $$$. Not that it's up to College Park to fix this but Toronto has a dearth of affordable 2-3 and even 4 star hotels (like Ibis or Travelodge) which in turn makes people rely on AirBnB's and then just perpetuates that cycle. I wonder if there's anything that can be done at the policy level.

 

[officedweller]

Anyone else notice that the towers are rendered with bay windows?
... like on the old Four Seasons Hotel?

 

[jje1000]

I echo what others have been saying- the podium completion is a generational opportunity, but the towers are pretty much duds, and need to embrace the neo-deco mentality rather than trying to reinterpret it.