Toronto Mirvish Village (Honest Ed's Redevelopment) | 85.04m | 26s | Westbank | Henriquez Partners

Depending on the design, that would be a good height for a podium with a tower going higher than that. It would be interesting to see if they can avoid the Giraffe pitfall.

AoD
 
Henriques. Great. Needlessly complicated designs/facades that seldom work together.
 
Waterloo_Guy said:
Interesting article. I've never heard so much nonsense from a developer. He talks about "tempering the economics," yet it has to be profitable to be sustainable. He's a developer, so he knows this. All his talk about activism and raising the bar is empty talk. Let's just see the proposal. He sounds like a good salesman though.
Click to expand...

The “temper the economics†quote came from the architect, not the developer.

The Woodward’s project in Vancouver (which was mentioned in the article) is a real example of balancing profitability with community needs/concerns. Many people were skeptical of the development but it turned out pretty good.

You can read more about Woodward’s here:

http://uli.org/case-study/woodwards/

"The Woodward’s redevelopment changed the neighborhood for the better in a number of ways. People who were homeless or living in substandard housing now have good housing. High-quality groceries are readily available now. The streets are safer. There is a diverse mix of people in the neighborhood. There is new culture and nightlife. Property values and the property tax base have increased, generating new revenue for the city. In addition, this was one of the first examples in Canada of mixing social housing and market-rate condominium housing, and the success of the project was an important landmark demonstrating that such a mix could work."
 
The Woodward's project is unique because it was spearheaded by the City of Vancouver and has a large social housing component.
It was also intended to help revitalize the drug-infested downtown eastside.

maestro said:
Henriques. Great. Needlessly complicated designs/facades that seldom work together.
Click to expand...

BINGO! He needs to learn to "edit".

Although 6th & Fir isn't bad:

http://henriquezpartners.com/work/6th-fir/

Here's a Westbank / Henriquez project in East Vancouver that's at a lower price point than others
(i.e. comparable to Bloor Bathurst) without the City-led social agenda.

http://henriquezpartners.com/work/kingsway-and-gladstone/
 
Last edited:
These both still look really sterile and lacking activity. I would love to see them go for something like the laneways/arcades in Melbourne. With smaller retail/restaurant/office space on the first, second and gasp! maybe even the third floors of these buildings.
 
I have to believe that this project is more likely to resemble aspects of the Woodwards project because of the scale (although it won't be that tall). Woodwards isn't sterile at all.

42
 
officedweller said:
The Woodward's project is unique because it was spearheaded by the City of Vancouver and has a large social housing component.
It was also intended to help revitalize the drug-infested downtown eastside.
Click to expand...


The point is that profitability and addressing social/community needs/concerns do not always have to be at odds. Woodward’s is not the only example in Vancouver. L'hermitage en ville (not in downtown eastside) includes a hotel, condos, shops and social housing units, for example.
 
Maybe Henriquez ought to hook up with a Toronto architect--like HPA or aA? I'm sort of nervous about getting puny Vancouver-style podiums, fussy details and typical glass towers with cheesy curves and useless balconies. I hope it's more Gastown-inspired. Really B&B deserves massing and style similar to Freedville area projects or Context King West/the Well. I've been spending some mornings lately "sketching" in area cafes to get a feel for an appropriate development: one idea.
 
urbandreamer said:
I'm sort of nervous about getting puny Vancouver-style podiums, fussy details and typical glass towers with cheesy curves and useless balconies.
Click to expand...

Don't be nervous. It sounds like 90% of what our new condos are like so it'll fit right in!
 
Edward Skira said:
B.Streets across the street is 9 so there is precedence for at least that high.
Click to expand...

Sorry for going a bit off-topic, but this is a personal pet peave for me as a lawyer. I've seen the word "precedence" used here, but it doesn't mean what people here think it does. B.Streets is a precedent for 9 stories. If there were multiple B Street type towers nearby, there would be several precedents for that height.

Precedents (plural of a precedent) and precedence sound the same when spoken, which I think is where the confusion lies. However, "precedence" means something or someone with priority over another, whereas "precedents" are prior cases (in this case of building design/rezoning, etc) which could guide decisions on future cases (rezonings, COA decisions, etc).
 
I'm surprised developers aren't pushing for high heights along Bloor. I don't expect it, but I wouldn't be surprised if they go for 25-30s here. It's on the subway and a streetcar line. I think the Giraffe decision chilled development along Bloor, somewhat. I believe this corner was a part of the Annex-Bloor visioning study about 6 years ago, as well as the recent one for Bathurst so it is under great scrutiny.

If density is okay for Yonge st along the subway, (Yonge & Eg, NYCC, etc) why not along the subway line here? I know context is local, but in the greater scheme of things, I would expect the planning department to exercise a bit more density equity over time.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top