News   Apr 23, 2024
Shimmy
 107     0 
News   Apr 22, 2024
Ferris + Associates Merges with NAK Design Group, Reshaping the GTA Landscape
 851     0 
News   Apr 22, 2024
UrbanToronto Webinars: Building Sustainably — Industry and Individuals
 289     0 

Pinnacle Uptown: Perla Towers (? Four Springs Ave, Pinnacle International, 34s + 15s, ?)

Looks like they are done all the floors for the west building. Just the top left.

I pass by the area daily and noticed they raised the crane last week. So can probably expect to see that one shoot up quickly now.
 
Mississauga's growth is simultaneously fascinating and appalling to me. Just look at the excellent photos from Jasonzed.

They've got the tower height and density done well. But then they've got these fields of dull, small townhomes, right next to or across the street from 30 storey towers. I can't figure out why. Some of them clearly predate neighbouring towers by a while, so they can get somewhat of a pass, but the ones next to this project are clearly very new.

Why is this? Would it not make more sense for that land to have been midrises? Or at least the blocks directly next to the towers being midrise, gradually lowering the height and density rather than falling from towers to townhomes instantly.

Sorry for going on this rant, but it just didn't make any sense to me. And perhaps someone can teach me a little bit more about how planning is done in Mississauga. Is the City really happy and willing to accept planning like this? Why? Also, the density drop-off of the massive, lovely M-City towers to the townhomes across the street is going to be insane to see.
 
Lachlan Holmes said:
Mississauga's growth is simultaneously fascinating and appalling to me. Just look at the excellent photos from Jasonzed.

They've got the tower height and density done well. But then they've got these fields of dull, small townhomes, right next to or across the street from 30 storey towers. I can't figure out why. Some of them clearly predate neighbouring towers by a while, so they can get somewhat of a pass, but the ones next to this project are clearly very new.

Why is this? Would it not make more sense for that land to have been midrises? Or at least the blocks directly next to the towers being midrise, gradually lowering the height and density rather than falling from towers to townhomes instantly.

Sorry for going on this rant, but it just didn't make any sense to me. And perhaps someone can teach me a little bit more about how planning is done in Mississauga. Is the City really happy and willing to accept planning like this? Why? Also, the density drop-off of the massive, lovely M-City towers to the townhomes across the street is going to be insane to see.
Click to expand...
it's Ontario's attitude that if you are going to build an apartment product you may as well build as many of them as you can. Midrise comes with all the costs of constructing apartments without the economy of scale of building 500 of them in one tower.

townhouses are a fundamentally different product that by their nature require hard ground below them. So a developer decides if they aren't gunna do townhouses, they don't want to do 6 storey midrises. They will do 30 storey towers.

M CIty is just a planning oddity as Mississauga doesn't have density restrictions in the downtown. Density is essentially only limited to how much parking a developer wants to build, which is why you are seeing M City building these massive towers to get really tall heights, but only a single tower on each block. The effective density of M City isn't all that different than, say, Parkside village, it's just built differently.
 
I think the question is more so regarding how the execution of these townhomes are appalling from an urban design perspective and outright auto-oriented. He is right, and it is something we've seen elsewhere (Markham Downtown) and are planning to repeat en masse even in Toronto (Celestica site at Don Mills & Eglinton).

Don't get me wrong, I approve of townhomes as a means of building more density than otherwise permissible by single-detached houses, but the way they are implemented here and elsewhere just amounts to a denser form of sprawl.
 
P1140902.JPG
P1140907.JPG
P1140910.JPG
P1140911.JPG
P1140913.JPG
P1140937.JPG
 
They're looking good so far, hoping we see those next taller phases start sometime soon.
 
Do they paint the panels after the fact? The colors look different from the initial shots.
 
Last edited:
Mr_Dog said:
Do they paint the panels after the fact? The colors look different from the initial brochures.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately not, the opaque panels are spandrel glass and are supposed to look like that. Looks like they had an aqua-coloured scheme originally, but decided to switch to charcoal instead.

It definitely changes the look quite a bit. It's not surprising, though, as the other two phases have turned out much darker than the original colour schemes suggested.
 
ericmacm said:
Unfortunately not, the opaque panels are spandrel glass and are supposed to look like that. Looks like they had an aqua-coloured scheme originally, but decided to switch to charcoal instead.

It definitely changes the look quite a bit. It's not surprising, though, as the other two phases have turned out much darker than the original colour schemes suggested.
Click to expand...

fair enough. I personally think the darker is more modern. Will be interesting to see the final look.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top