Toronto 147 Spadina | 82.8m | 24s | Hullmark | AUDAX

If this application is rejected, or DRP requests somthing "more contemporary" like they did with 88 Scott, I'll be livid.
 
greenleaf said:
Love everything but find the giant planters (and possibly an arcade?) a horrendous choice for Spadina frontage. Keep the fine grain retail, somehow please.

eta: it appears there is patio space along spadina. Still doesn’t explain the arcade to me.
Click to expand...
There's no arcade, just a notched corner at Richmond for a grander commercial entrance.

42
 
Article with some commentary from the current retail tenants on site:

www.blogto.com

New condo tower to replace popular string of restaurants in downtown Toronto

Toronto's Spadina and Richmond intersection could soon look a whole lot different, a new development plan aiming to erase the building at the northea…
www.blogto.com www.blogto.com


A few businesses occupy the redevelopment site, and the two owners we spoke to are showing a mix of reactions learning that the building is now on the chopping block.

Pasquale Belsito of Fusaro's Italian Kitchen tells blogTO, "we were informed of the intentions to redevelop the building when Hullmark introduced themselves to us. No timetable was given to us but it was assumed that it wouldn't be for a couple of years."

Despite the potential disruption to his business, Belsito says the restaurant is "excited about the changes," stating that though their lease is up in two years, they have been offered future retail opportunities by the property owner. "Hullmark has been really good to us from the day they took over the building."

In stark contrast to Fusaro's statement, another tenant within the same building who wishes to remain anonymous tells blogTO that they had heard nothing of redevelopment plans prior to being approached for comment.

"We were aware that the building had been bought out by Hullmark. We also assumed that there would be some development in the future however we were completely unaware that a proposal had been submitted for a new development already. We were shocked to find this information out."

The two other businesses in the building could not be reached for comment. Hullmark Developments was also approached for comment, but the company has yet to respond.
Click to expand...
 
Great tower design. A few urban design pet peeves at the ground level that bother me, but they'd be easy to fix without changing the design much. For one, those planters need to go so the building can meet the street. Right now it's a makeshift fence. Secondly, architects, and a lot of other people, like the clean lines of standardized signage, but it always creates a dimmer public realm than a design that allows tenants to customize the entry into their business. It's not as sexy in the pictures, but it would go a long way to cut back slightly on the glass at ground level so there is opportunity for businesses to add colour or awnings... or anything they want to stand out.
 
Theres quite a bit of space behind the planters. They help shelter patio go-ers from the roaring cars and exhaust of the busy street.
 
147 SPADINA AVE
Ward 10: Spadina-Fort York

Zoning By-law Amendment to facilitate the development of the site for a 25-storey mixed-use building, inclusive of a 14-storey podium, and having a non-residential gross floor area of 433.6 square metres, and a residential gross floor area of 19,415 square metres. 223 residential dwelling units are proposed.

Development Applications

City Planning COA Application Information Center
app.toronto.ca
 
Headline UT article from today:

urbantoronto.ca

Art Deco-Inspired Tower Proposed at Spadina and Richmond | UrbanToronto

Hullmark has submitted plans to the City of Toronto for a new 25-storey tower at 147 Spadina on the northeast corner with Richmond Street. The proposed building is designed by AUDAX Architecture and rises to a height of 86.4m, containing 223 condo units with retail at grade.
urbantoronto.ca urbantoronto.ca
 
As long as the design faithfully follows proper proportions and materials (and not lazy NY Towers style "inspiration"), I'm all for new buildings being built in styles that have come to be thought of as historic. Architecture followed remarkably consistent principles for thousands of years that were pretty much all thrown out in the mid 20th century for no good reason. Architects largely look down on what they misguidedly consider outdated and now favour novelty above all else, resulting in the almost universally ugly jenga towers all over the city. It's refreshing to see some firms bucking the trend with designs like this one. Hopefully this trend of frowning on designs like this one will one day be a thing of the past.
 
MisterF said:
Architecture followed remarkably consistent principles for thousands of years that were pretty much all thrown out in the mid 20th century for no good reason. Architects largely look down on what they misguidedly consider outdated and now favour novelty above all else
Click to expand...
Whoa, ok, there's a lot going on here. I'd call this proposal a 21st-century postmodern reinterpretation of Art Deco, which was itself unabashedly modern and not intended to invoke tradition during the brief time it was in vogue. Art Deco became fashionable after Art Nouveau lost its novelty, and Art Nouveau itself was known as the Modern Style when it was popular. Architecture has been following trends and pursuing novelty for hundreds of years -- this is in no way a 20th-century phenomenon. And let's not forget 80s and 90s PoMo, which was all about the references to historic styles. I like this proposal and think the architecture is interesting, but let's not pretend that this design represents a rejection of modernity and a return to "tradition", whatever that might mean.
 
smably said:
Whoa, ok, there's a lot going on here. I'd call this proposal a 21st-century postmodern reinterpretation of Art Deco, which was itself unabashedly modern and not intended to invoke tradition during the brief time it was in vogue. Art Deco became fashionable after Art Nouveau lost its novelty, and Art Nouveau itself was known as the Modern Style when it was popular. Architecture has been following trends and pursuing novelty for hundreds of years -- this is in no way a 20th-century phenomenon. And let's not forget 80s and 90s PoMo, which was all about the references to historic styles. I like this proposal and think the architecture is interesting, but let's not pretend that this design represents a rejection of modernity and a return to "tradition", whatever that might mean.
Click to expand...

Sure, art deco was an early modernist style, but it used proportions, materials, and ornamentation that are somewhat arbitrarily considered historic or outdated today. The use of brick and stone, carvings, elaborate decoration, and even vertical design elements at street level are frowned upon in the design of new buildings. My point is that they shouldn’t be.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top