B
building babel
Guest
STINSON + TRUMP = STUMP
|
|
|
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
A
andreapalladio
Guest
TRUMP + STINSON = TRON = Something interesting to look at for a few minutes, but which doesn't exist outside the virtual realm.
B
bizorky
Guest
Virtual real estate specualtion; an untapped market!
B
Brighter Hell
Guest
Tron funkin blows
E
elook
Guest
Anyone see the ad in Metro today? Online version link is below. Trump, Stinson, Robbins, George Forman and some other dude will be appearing at a Learning Annex event. Trump is shown in the ad, but only referred to as Donald. Something tells me Trump is appearing via phone or satellite.
Stinson is shown with the caption, "Toronto Tychoon (sic)"
Link
Stinson is shown with the caption, "Toronto Tychoon (sic)"
Link
3
3Dementia
Guest
All the speakers will focus on get rich strategies.
The Tychoon (aka the Toronto Typhoon) will focus on getting poor.
The Tychoon (aka the Toronto Typhoon) will focus on getting poor.
B
Bogtrotter
Guest
Quite the menagerie of characters. But where's the 61 year old rock star with a bowflex body?
E
elook
Guest
Tony Little?
U
urbanboyto
Guest
looks cheesy...
Y
yyzer
Guest
JOHN BENTLEY MAYS
From Friday's Globe and Mail
The dismal little parking lot at 66 Temperance St., at the heart of Toronto's financial district, occupies one of the most desirable building sites in Canada. It's got location galore, with centres of corporate power, entertainment and government just steps away. It's also got strong architectural context: The tall buildings in the neighbourhood demand that whatever is put up there be grand and urbane, and a visible sign of Toronto's large ambitions.
Yet the place has long suffered under a kind of jinx. Developers have come and gone, building nothing. Several tall-building schemes have been proposed for the site in the past several years, but all were scuttled for one reason or another. After acquiring the property in 2003, high-profile Toronto developer Harry Stinson toyed with a skyscraper condo-hotel project for about a year, then withdrew it because, he told me, "It was not sufficiently sexy [in concept] to carry the sales." Mr. Stinson's next design — Sapphire Tower, a daring blue glass cylinder soaring 81 storeys from grade and joined to a 62-storey building — was shot down by city council.
These days, however, the luck of 66 Temperance seems to be on the upswing. Though the politicians have not yet approved Mr. Stinson's sweeping redesign of Sapphire Tower, the revised plan has so far enjoyed smooth sailing through the bureaucracy. Barring further troubles, the parking lot will probably soon be bulldozed to make way for a svelte and unusual new condominium tower.
Crafted by Peter Turner of the Toronto firm Turner Fleischer Architects Inc., the new Sapphire Tower will rise 62 storeys from Temperance Street, with its topmost storeys notched back in a ziggurat pattern of terraces. A rakishly angled fin will surmount the building, which in most other respects is a traditionally boxy composition sheathed in a shimmering blue glass curtain wall.
What's different, and most interesting, about the structure is the layout of its suites. Mr. Stinson has decided to defy conventional wisdom about downtown apartments — that they have to be small — and has amply furnished his building with two-storey condos the size of a free-standing home in any upper middle-class district of the city. There are one-bedroom apartments, 759 square feet in area, currently for sale at about $450,000 — the lowest price in the building. But the more typical suite features three bedrooms and a den, and comes in at between 2,200 and almost 2,500 square feet. In different configurations, these larger apartments are on sale for between about $1-million and $1.5-million — hardly an unusual price any longer for comfortable living in Toronto's current housing market. For clients who want even more space, Sapphire Tower will offer 4,300-square-foot penthouses at the top of the building, starting at $3.5-million.
Mr. Stinson is betting that an increasing number of high-earning Torontonians no longer see the condominium apartment as merely a place to start (and end) their home-owning lives. The spacious, family-sized products he is offering at Sapphire Tower invite people to spend their whole lives in downtown apartments, with the security, comfort and convenience such living arrangements provide. (Sapphire will feature a 24-hour market, a daycare, and several floors of small condominium offices, starting at $99,000. And in a welcome move, the architect has put all the parking — six storeys of it — below grade.)
Many Torontonians will be watching this project to see if the developer wins his wager; I, for one, hope he does. Toronto will know it has come of age as a great city when affluent home buyers have the widest possible choice of housing options.
In this mix, there should be large freestanding houses in suburbia for people who want them, of course, but also large family-sized apartments in the urban core for those who don't want the commute, and who appreciate the pulse and sophistication of downtown.
That said, I find myself disappointed by the conventional shape and reduced height of the current Sapphire Tower scheme. Mr. Turner's previous design — the 81-storey glass tube with a globular anti-sway device on top — was stunning, and would have made a fine contribution to the Toronto skyline.
But our city council, worried about a finger of shadow that would pass over Nathan Phillips Square from time to time, was having none of it. Hence, the pared-down version now being taken to market.
Somehow, official Toronto must get over its fear of heights. But just as urgently, it should get past its anxiety about shadows. The downtown of every large modern North American city offers a complex, entertaining, ever-changing show of light and shadow, and that's something to be glad about. Everlasting daytime brightness is something we expect out on the prairie, but the landscape of cities is something else — and some day, Toronto will learn how to celebrate the difference.
From Friday's Globe and Mail
The dismal little parking lot at 66 Temperance St., at the heart of Toronto's financial district, occupies one of the most desirable building sites in Canada. It's got location galore, with centres of corporate power, entertainment and government just steps away. It's also got strong architectural context: The tall buildings in the neighbourhood demand that whatever is put up there be grand and urbane, and a visible sign of Toronto's large ambitions.
Yet the place has long suffered under a kind of jinx. Developers have come and gone, building nothing. Several tall-building schemes have been proposed for the site in the past several years, but all were scuttled for one reason or another. After acquiring the property in 2003, high-profile Toronto developer Harry Stinson toyed with a skyscraper condo-hotel project for about a year, then withdrew it because, he told me, "It was not sufficiently sexy [in concept] to carry the sales." Mr. Stinson's next design — Sapphire Tower, a daring blue glass cylinder soaring 81 storeys from grade and joined to a 62-storey building — was shot down by city council.
These days, however, the luck of 66 Temperance seems to be on the upswing. Though the politicians have not yet approved Mr. Stinson's sweeping redesign of Sapphire Tower, the revised plan has so far enjoyed smooth sailing through the bureaucracy. Barring further troubles, the parking lot will probably soon be bulldozed to make way for a svelte and unusual new condominium tower.
Crafted by Peter Turner of the Toronto firm Turner Fleischer Architects Inc., the new Sapphire Tower will rise 62 storeys from Temperance Street, with its topmost storeys notched back in a ziggurat pattern of terraces. A rakishly angled fin will surmount the building, which in most other respects is a traditionally boxy composition sheathed in a shimmering blue glass curtain wall.
What's different, and most interesting, about the structure is the layout of its suites. Mr. Stinson has decided to defy conventional wisdom about downtown apartments — that they have to be small — and has amply furnished his building with two-storey condos the size of a free-standing home in any upper middle-class district of the city. There are one-bedroom apartments, 759 square feet in area, currently for sale at about $450,000 — the lowest price in the building. But the more typical suite features three bedrooms and a den, and comes in at between 2,200 and almost 2,500 square feet. In different configurations, these larger apartments are on sale for between about $1-million and $1.5-million — hardly an unusual price any longer for comfortable living in Toronto's current housing market. For clients who want even more space, Sapphire Tower will offer 4,300-square-foot penthouses at the top of the building, starting at $3.5-million.
Mr. Stinson is betting that an increasing number of high-earning Torontonians no longer see the condominium apartment as merely a place to start (and end) their home-owning lives. The spacious, family-sized products he is offering at Sapphire Tower invite people to spend their whole lives in downtown apartments, with the security, comfort and convenience such living arrangements provide. (Sapphire will feature a 24-hour market, a daycare, and several floors of small condominium offices, starting at $99,000. And in a welcome move, the architect has put all the parking — six storeys of it — below grade.)
Many Torontonians will be watching this project to see if the developer wins his wager; I, for one, hope he does. Toronto will know it has come of age as a great city when affluent home buyers have the widest possible choice of housing options.
In this mix, there should be large freestanding houses in suburbia for people who want them, of course, but also large family-sized apartments in the urban core for those who don't want the commute, and who appreciate the pulse and sophistication of downtown.
That said, I find myself disappointed by the conventional shape and reduced height of the current Sapphire Tower scheme. Mr. Turner's previous design — the 81-storey glass tube with a globular anti-sway device on top — was stunning, and would have made a fine contribution to the Toronto skyline.
But our city council, worried about a finger of shadow that would pass over Nathan Phillips Square from time to time, was having none of it. Hence, the pared-down version now being taken to market.
Somehow, official Toronto must get over its fear of heights. But just as urgently, it should get past its anxiety about shadows. The downtown of every large modern North American city offers a complex, entertaining, ever-changing show of light and shadow, and that's something to be glad about. Everlasting daytime brightness is something we expect out on the prairie, but the landscape of cities is something else — and some day, Toronto will learn how to celebrate the difference.
B
Brighter Hell
Guest
^Why is it so controversial that the city wants to keep more shadows from Nathan Philips Square? Honestly, Toronto would have to start building like Dubai for all this "fear of heights" talk to stop.
A
akaFTech
Guest
article
Thanks for the article, I'm glad to hear that there is "smooth sailing" with the Sapphire tower. Lets just stay optimistic and see what this fresh new year brings.
Thanks for the article, I'm glad to hear that there is "smooth sailing" with the Sapphire tower. Lets just stay optimistic and see what this fresh new year brings.
B
Bogtrotter
Guest
I think the shadow impact would have been marginal for a building with such a slender profile, but perhaps they fear that it will set a precedent for building higher around the square. Didn't somebody mention on here that Telus was reduced in height because it would cast a shadow over union station?
A
alklay
Guest
I agree. This 'fear of heights' thing is a bit of a myth.
The city does not want shadows on an important public square and the whole city is afraid of heights? A few people complain about the heights of some buildings and the whole population is afraid of heights? The answer: no.
Meanwhile we have a city with probably the third largest collection of 'tall buildings' in North America and the world's tallest free-standing structure (and I certainly did not see a lot of fear at the Shangri-La proposal).
In addition, every city has individuals who will raise concerns with heights of certain buildings in certain areas - and New York is famous for this. Maybe New York have a fear of heights?
Toronto has many fears (perhaps our greatest fear is the fear of being too 'showy' (i.e. not egalitarian enough) - witness a utilitarian opera house and the apparent fear of trees and flowers on Bloor Street) but our fear of heights does not appear to be any worse than any other city.
The city does not want shadows on an important public square and the whole city is afraid of heights? A few people complain about the heights of some buildings and the whole population is afraid of heights? The answer: no.
Meanwhile we have a city with probably the third largest collection of 'tall buildings' in North America and the world's tallest free-standing structure (and I certainly did not see a lot of fear at the Shangri-La proposal).
In addition, every city has individuals who will raise concerns with heights of certain buildings in certain areas - and New York is famous for this. Maybe New York have a fear of heights?
Toronto has many fears (perhaps our greatest fear is the fear of being too 'showy' (i.e. not egalitarian enough) - witness a utilitarian opera house and the apparent fear of trees and flowers on Bloor Street) but our fear of heights does not appear to be any worse than any other city.
N
nstuch
Guest
"occupies one of the most desirable building sites in Canada. It's got location galore, with centres of corporate power, entertainment and government just steps away"
what a joke, that's got to be one of the most dismal areas in the entire downtown core, Richmond Street is totally run down, with homeless people sprawled all over the sidewalk every 100 feet, and the Sheraton Centre is at it's craptacular worst there. there's also zero services or amenities within at least 1km.
what a joke, that's got to be one of the most dismal areas in the entire downtown core, Richmond Street is totally run down, with homeless people sprawled all over the sidewalk every 100 feet, and the Sheraton Centre is at it's craptacular worst there. there's also zero services or amenities within at least 1km.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.