News   Jul 12, 2024
199 Church Showcases Heritage Facade and Artwork at Street Level
 1.6K     0 
News   Jul 12, 2024
Six Points Plaza Redevelopment Advances With 36-Storey First Phase
 1.2K     1 
News   Jul 12, 2024
Trading Spaces: Can Real Estate Conversion Help Boost Housing Supply?
 454     0 

91 King Street East (Albany Club, 25s, WZMH Architects)

OMG that thing is horrendous and doesn't even TRY to bring something to the neighbourhood.

Yes, yes, it's just a line-drawing elevation for city documents. I realize this. But the MASSING for God's sake... look at it! It's one massive wall the length of an entire city block.
 
SP!RE said:
OMG that thing is horrendous and doesn't even TRY to bring something to the neighbourhood.

Yes, yes, it's just a line-drawing elevation for city documents. I realize this. But the MASSING for God's sake... look at it! It's one massive wall the length of an entire city block.
Click to expand...

That's what she said?
 
Little late for an April Fool's joke, isn't it? Probably the developer has the real proposal - which probably consists of two very tall, unoriginal point towers - at the ready when this gets laughed out of council.
 
Gee way to bulky, but then to many thats OK cause its only 47s approx. 140 meter box....to me considering the location, id rather see a slimmer (1/2 the footprint) better designed structure of say, 55-60s/200m incorporating this heritage site.
What a wasted opportunity to build something elegant in the core.:confused:
 
Office with condos after the setback? With an interesting architect could look very cool. I like the idea of developers restoring old buildings and placing the density behind in the alley, so the alley becomes another street really while the main streets retain historic feeling.
 
This looks like Stalin era massing to me. The breadth of the structure with its rows of windows is vaguely reminiscent of the Moscow State University main building, though admittedly not so large and imposing and without the central spire to create interest. Perhaps a large Red Star on the roof would complete the effect? :)
 
DSC said:
This came up when the St Lawrence Neighbourhood Association was investigating laneway names in 2010 and apparently the City has done further research and the whole of the Lane is actually City property.
Click to expand...

From the Preliminary Report on the 60 Colborne application (p.4):

"There is an existing 4.63 metre wide private laneway located in the middle of the Church Street frontage that divides the site."

http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2012/te/bgrd/backgroundfile-46268.pdf
 
I can confirm, after speaking with the Toronto planner, that this proposal does not include any property on Colborne Lane.

The private laneway is indeed private. Its ownership is shared between the King Street property owners and Freed, and they have divided the ownership in a way that extends their properties in an obvious way: Freed owns the portion between their lots along Church, as well as the south half of the lane, while the King Street property owners own the north half of the lane. An easement provides all users of the lane right of way throughout the lane.

The King Street property owners propose to join the private lane with the public lane extending east from Leader Lane.
 
67Cup said:
This looks like Stalin era massing to me. The breadth of the structure with its rows of windows is vaguely reminiscent of the Moscow State University main building, though admittedly not so large and imposing and without the central spire to create interest. Perhaps a large Red Star on the roof would complete the effect? :)
Click to expand...

I was thinking more of the Russian White House. Maybe they could put up a statue of Yeltsin on a tank as their public art contribution!
 
Gphorce said:
I'm half laughing and terrified at this proposal. On one hand, it's hilarious that a developer would propose this, and secondly, if this ever went through I would cry. I'm glad they're at least keeping the facades, but that hulking monstrosity is a serious block killer. Call me a NIMBY, but that is not being built in my Toronto!
Click to expand...

I won't call you a NIMBY if you won't call me a NIMFY (Not In My Front Yard?) I live directly opposite this proposal with what is currently a wonderful view. Glad to see the heritage buildings standing, not really sure what is going on behind them. I don't really have a leg to stand on, as the building I live in isn't really bringing beauty to Toronto, but it's so sad to think of something like this going up in the heart of such historical buildings.
 
ahmad.m.atiya said:
Luckily, you are not the sole person responsible for making these decisions.
Click to expand...

Opponents of this ill-fitting and brutal proposal have only the well-being of the city and it's architecture in mind. It's proponents have only their bottom line in mind and don't give a damn about the city. It has always struck me as a conflict of interest that it is within the realm of a property owner to use lawyers to amend the OCP in their favour, while laying waste to the richness of the city in the process.
 
neubilder said:
Opponents of this ill-fitting and brutal proposal have only the well-being of the city and it's architecture in mind. It's proponents have only their bottom line in mind and don't give a damn about the city. It has always struck me as a conflict of interest that it is within the realm of a property owner to use lawyers to amend the OCP in their favour, while laying waste to the richness of the city in the process.
Click to expand...

I have no monetary gains on stake with this project, and yet I'm still a proponent. Please stop generalizing/assuming.

Why am I a proponent? Frankly, I don't think that this area is nearly dense enough for being so close to the downtown core. Toronto could really use all the "imposing" structures it can get to match the big city feel that other places have. As a matter of fact, many would argue that shadows and imposing buildings are the nicest thing about big cities. Sadly, many on this forum want the exact opposite and seem to (for whatever reason) think that their opinion is a fact, and that any building that is imposing or casts a shadow should be rejected.
 
I have nothing against imposing structures, I have been a proponent of Aura since its debut. But something like this is just unoriginal and bland. I does not add any aesthetics to this area and while some talk up the "neo-modern" design benefits of buildings such as this, I still think that it's way too wide to be built here. If it were split into a couple towers I would not mind, but the ridiculous massing is what makes me hate it. Anyone walking by wold feel overpowered, and not in a way that would make them want to take pictures, but in the way that would make them speed up walking and turn this block into a dead zone. There are buildings along Yonge near college that have the same effect and I would hope that architects had learned the lessons from past failures this proposal emulates.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top