Search results

Yes, it seems very Scandinavian to me for some reason.

How would this be connected to the PATH? The furthest north the PATH goes is Dundas, isn't it? I wish it reached Bloor.

That’s what it reminded me of. I think it’s as architecturally hostile, though yeah, at least it’s not as conspicuous.

That might be the most offensively perfunctory façade I’ve ever seen, or at least in contemporary architecture.

I’d prefer the H&M and Scotiabank be redeveloped separately, rather than one block-long monolith.

Yes, businesses need to compete; if there’s one corporate goliath that makes infinite amounts of money all over the world dominating everywhere, there’s no competition. We need a lot of smaller companies to spread the wealth and ownership and to compete with each other. And you’re equating...

I concur. And demolishing without a proposal is obnoxious. If a developer wants to demolish a historical structure, she/he should at least have to tell us what she/he is going to put in its stead to first justify its demolition.

With the new rules for cladding, can a proposal as glass-covered as this be accepted?

I wish there were street walls everywhere, but especially somewhere as downtown and central as this. It’s absurd to waste so much space right next to Yonge Street.

The gaps on either side of this drive me crazy. I wish it was pressed up against another building to begin some semblance of a street wall here.

Yeah, it's absurd that it's only six storeys right at a subway station, but it's the usual Danforth phenomenon whereby nothing remotely tall can even be suggested east of the Prince Edward Viaduct.

Exactly. This tower-of-glass style is so perfunctory that weird balconies are what passes as architecture these days; these towers would be indistinguishable without their balconies. With each new building comes another weird balcony pattern, and that’s their visual contribution to the city.

Exactly; their all-glass, ice palace schtick is so stale. What would aA do without glass? Would they be rendered architecturally impotent?

Don’t remind me; the most depressing demolition I’ve witnessed in my time observing this stuff. I’ll never understand how they were able to so swiftly demolish this thing with (ostensibly) no struggle (protests, heritage preservation battles, etc.)... and all to just make a weird driveway, park...

They’re too monotonously glass-covered and I wish they came right up to the street rather than were buffered by townhouses, but overall I enjoy their presence (though maybe it’s because I remember how much I hated the parking lot there).

This is why we need the OMB. This shouldn't be considered “over-development” at Dundas & Jarvis.

That McDonald’s may not have a parking lot, but it’s hideously suburban all the same. It should have been replaced by a tall building a long time ago. I'll never understand why such profit-driven businesses never seem to sell such prominent property; once a McDonald’s, always a McDonald’s, it...

I agree completely. I hate the ridiculous podium + tower combination that’s so ubiquitous in current developments; I find it to be hideous, and I hate that it’s so apologetic about its density. Buildings should go right up to the limits of their property and be pressed right up against other...

Exactly; requiring that a certain portion of new residential units that are constructed be designated for TCHC housing seems the best way of improving the urban design of areas while retaining economic heterogeneity, and the Regent Park and Alexandra Park approaches, as well. I hope more of this...

I agree that gentrification is harmful in that it makes it hard for poorer people to live downtown and we should try to minimize this effect as much as possible, but this raises my eternal conundrum with gentrification discourse: Cities need to change sometimes, especially when the buildings in...