Toronto 1540 Bloor West | 91.9m | 27s | Trinity Group | Arcadis

Are we looking at the same thing??
Maybe I just know the area better than you do. IMO, this discussion should not be about what the building looks like (too highly subjective and rarely looked at after construction is complete) but the considerations given to street level space.
 
Maybe I just know the area better than you do. IMO, this discussion should not be about what the building looks like (too highly subjective and rarely looked at after construction is complete) but the considerations given to street level space.
People don't evaluate a building's aesthetic after it's complete?
 
Maybe I just know the area better than you do. IMO, this discussion should not be about what the building looks like (too highly subjective and rarely looked at after construction is complete) but the considerations given to street level space.
I'm confused, a conversation about a development that will stand on a prominent intersection for the rest of our lifetimes should not be about what it looks like?

Then what should it be about, the earth that will be dug up for it? The amount of concrete that will be pumped into the site? Please enlighten us.
 
I'm confused, a conversation about a development that will stand on a prominent intersection for the rest of our lifetimes should not be about what it looks like?

Then what should it be about, the earth that will be dug up for it? The amount of concrete that will be pumped into the site? Please enlighten us.
It is the street levels of any building that impacts on peoples' everyday lives. The overall design is more of an academic discussion with little impact.
 
LMAO! Okay dude.

Anyway, this latest design is an architectural abomination at street level as well as from afar.
I don't see that. The architect has tried to arrange the setbacks so there is a lot of pedestrian space added to the street corner and along the frontage towards the TTC station. The addition of street furniture there will further augment the corner. For contrast, look at the other side of the street where there are wide sidewalks but awkward planters and a lack of street furniture.
 
So your entire evaluation of this horrorshow is based on the fact that they gave over 6-8m at the corner of Dundas and Bloor?

1617047191787.png
 
It is the street levels of any building that impacts on peoples' everyday lives. The overall design is more of an academic discussion with little impact.

I'm a full supporter of the streetlevel experience being at the top of the hierarchy of what a building should strive to do well, and also recognize the inherent subjectivity of reality and aesthetic preferences, but with respect this is taking those ideas way too far to a very silly degree.
 
Last edited:
I'm a full supporter of the streetlevel experience being at the top of the hierarchy of what a building should strive to do well, and also recognize the inherent subjectivity of reality and aesthetic preferences, but with respect this is taking those ideas way too far to a very silly degree.
Love the passive aggressive "with respect" LOL

A very typical NIMBY'ist response though: I agree with some of your opinion but not the rest so I'm going to sort of compliment you but, no, not really.
 
Love the passive aggressive "with respect" LOL

A very typical NIMBY'ist response though: I agree with some of your opinion but not the rest so I'm going to sort of compliment you but, no, not really.

I said with respect because I was trying to be respectful. I guess it is a bit passive aggressive though, sorry about that. Anyway, I'm not a NIMBY — I'd be fine with and encourage an even taller building here and significantly more redevelopment in the area (which I also live in) in general. Your points (in particular your total dismissal of the overall design of a building being important at all) are just very reductive IMO.
 
Last edited:
A very typical NIMBY'ist response
You're barking up the wrong tree here. All the NIMBYs left this thread a couple of pages ago. The members you're arguing against are all on the record as being supportive of density and development, but we have standards when it comes to design and architecture. I don't think anyone here objects to the size or massing of the latest revision, and I'm certainly happy to see the wide sidewalks at the corner, but those alone aren't enough to make this a successful development. Everyone wants something significant built here, just not this cheap dreck. Also, many of us are from the area, so no need for the holier-than-thou attitude.
 
... just not this cheap dreck ...

I really would like to understand why you (and/or anybody else) think it's that bad. From the presentation by the developer and architect, and subsequent discussion, my impression was they felt their key challenge was to minimize the height of the building by breaking it up as they did. If this was a more linear design, it would look even taller and they wanted to avoid that.
 

Back
Top