Toronto 1710 Ellesmere | 178.79m | 55s | Tridel | Kirkor

The balcony motif immediately reminded me of when a window or dialog used to freeze in Windows and you dragged it around. Maybe that's what happened while they were designing it? My fellow elder Millennials know what I'm talking about:

unnamed.png
 
Kirkor is weird arsed when it comes to their designs. That is, when they try to be different they seem to miss the nuance of what really being different is about, for bad or good. I can see why they drive ProjectEnd-san batty. >.<
 
The new stats are updated in the database. The total car parking changed from 1492 car parking to 1509 car parking. The total bike parking changed from 1823 bike parking to 1798 bike parking.

The stats are taken from the architectural plan via rezoning submission.
 
egotrippin said:
The balcony motif immediately reminded me of when a window or dialog used to freeze in Windows and you dragged it around. Maybe that's what happened while they were designing it? My fellow elder Millennials know what I'm talking about:

View attachment 491541
Click to expand...
Or by using (*I might be totally wrong on this as I sucked at programming in high school)
a boolean script /loop to create a multitude of windows outputting the same message.
 
From yesterday's presentation:

1694787243831.png


Question: What is the rationale for the 7 storey above-grade garage?

- Proponent reply: Given the TTC's SRT Yard being there, we didn't feel residential units facing that use was appropriate, so we used it instead for parking.

Question Does anyone know if the SRT yard will remain in some form given the SRT shutting down?

- City Staff reply: The TTC is working on a confidential redevelopment plan for that site, that cannot be publicly shared at this time, which will be for a non-residential use. 🤨

Comments:

- Park appears to be in too much shadow, no clear shadow studies that relate to the park.

- No rationale provide for the extreme density and height proposed.

- Monoculture of giant fat buildings, with very large footprints and podiums is troubling.

- If the parking garage went ahead, is it possible to design this flexibly to convert it to another use should the context evolve favourably.

- Could the podium of the building which includes the CLTO (community living) facility accommodate outdoor amenity space on the podium.

- Too suburban, too car-centric for a site that is justified by proximity to the subway. Three driveways for pedestrians to cross is too much.

- Insufficient bicycle parking, biking infrastructure on-road (cycle tracks/bike lanes, good quality sidewalks) are lacking

- I don't get it ; joyless, scary. - Ralph.

-FSI at Agincourt 3.5 this is 3x the density of Agincourt, no justification, no give-back - Ralph.

- Too many blank facades

- Buildings are overbearing

- Too much parking

- Parkland is too small

- Street edge not legible, or consistent.

- "We're looking for something that does something good for Scarborough Town Centre; that's hard to find in this project"

****

Unanimous vote of Non-Support.
 
Last edited:
This one has had a re-work, and is back.

2 renders, we'll start there:

1733228156592.png


1733228191455.png


Revised Site Plan:

1733228353152.png


Revised Ground Floor Plan:

1733228461024.png


1733228746267.png

1733228809990.png


Changes Description from the Planning Addendum:

1733229028468.png

1733229069224.png

1733229143517.png

1733229203877.png

1733229244699.png

1733229283198.png

1733229314242.png

1733229406164.png

1733229449968.png


More if you follow the link.

Comments:

Well..........there are some modest improvements..............but the most important one they could have made here would have been changing the architecture firm, and that, they did not do.

Sigh.

Upside - slightly less parking, most of it now underground, one less driveway/parking entrance, designs are less busy.

Downside - parking remains excessive, still exceeds 0.51 when considering only resident spaces. Some parking remains on the surface, and at-grade, inside, as high as level one mezzanine in one block. Park remains under-sized relative to functionality, at-grade animation is still poor with virtually no retail, buildings continue to be devoid of colour and warmth.

Proposed bike lanes and sidewalk sizes are not acceptable. 1.8M wide bike lane will allow for a painted buffer only, no physical separation, 2.1M pedestrian clearway is the bare minimum permissible for a very dense community, should be at least ~3M

For @Paclo

Renders are Arch pkg 7
Elevations are Arch Pkg 4
Site Plan is Arch Pkg 3
Phasing Plan is Arch Pkg 2
Cover/Stats is Arch Pkg 1
 
Northern Light said:
...but the most important one they could have made here would have been changing the architecture firm, and that, they did not do.
Click to expand...
Tridel: "We know you folks over at UT like them soooo much, we decided to stick with them for the duration. And if not to give us the occasional good laugh when we glance at this thread!"

/sigh
 
Hoping that BLOCK 3 with the rental & affordable apartment is actually PHASE-1 of this re-development.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top