ferusian
Active Member
Smart Centres + architectsAlliance: 44 storeys (131.60 metres including MPH)
(Mods please move to a new thread if necessary)
Toronto SmartCentres Golden Mile (Phase 1) | 160.05m | 48s | SmartCentres | a—A
- Thread starter ferusian
- Start date
Smart Centres + architectsAlliance: 44 storeys (131.60 metres including MPH)
(Mods please move to a new thread if necessary)
isaidso
Senior Member
Wishful thinking but the fat side would look fantastic if it's done is steel. I guess it will be something more mundane.
Northern Light
Superstar
At first blush, looks a bit overbearing; and rather cold.
I don't like street/podium level
Also, can't remember what the Golden Mile Plan says on this, but if you want sun to reach the interior of the site, given that these are at the southern extreme, the massing or the height need to change.
I don't like street/podium level
Also, can't remember what the Golden Mile Plan says on this, but if you want sun to reach the interior of the site, given that these are at the southern extreme, the massing or the height need to change.
Northern Light
Superstar
From the Docs:
The siting of these 2 towers is in the south-west corner of the property, adjacent to the current gas station and in front of the Wal-Mart, which appears to remain operational during this phase.
From the Planning Rationale Report:
Looking at the hydrology report:
This site appears to have a lot of ground water, some of it fairly close to the surface (within 1M); there will be a need for long-term de-watering.
The siting of these 2 towers is in the south-west corner of the property, adjacent to the current gas station and in front of the Wal-Mart, which appears to remain operational during this phase.
From the Planning Rationale Report:
Looking at the hydrology report:
This site appears to have a lot of ground water, some of it fairly close to the surface (within 1M); there will be a need for long-term de-watering.
ProjectEnd
Superstar
Looks good. Keep it simple. More articulation and less glass at grade, but I like the low-key checkerboard here.
UtakataNoAnnex
Senior Member
Cautiously optimistic about this one, presuming there will be no drastic changes to this proposal.
Johnny Au
Senior Member
The checkerboard design looks very snazzy, which is very fitting for the Golden Mile.
cd concept
Senior Member
Very eye catching design ! Let's play checkers Ha Ha !!
Undead
Senior Member
I like the checker board pattern, but just make it a warm colour because, you know, golden mile. Podium needs a complete rethink. But this whole thing will be probably get redesigned once or twice during the approvals process and in a few years we'll be looking back wistfully on this design.
Northern Light
Superstar
The preliminary report on this one is headed to the June 25th meeting of SCC.
Report here: https://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2021/sc/bgrd/backgroundfile-167658.pdf
From the report.......... (hints of a refusal report)
Report here: https://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2021/sc/bgrd/backgroundfile-167658.pdf
From the report.......... (hints of a refusal report)
Irishmonk
Senior Member
This is just more of the same glass podium/cereal box iteration plaguing the city. The ideal scenario for the Golden Mile would be to invite the top Danish firms to come in and provide the masterplans for each of these chunky plots. And then to design the actual buildings and not have them be value-engineered to the bare bones of the original plans.
Imagine warm toned mid rises lining along Eglinton, with building heights gently ascending away from the arterial.to perhaps 30 stories-tops. But, obviously, that won't happen/can't happen due to various intractable reasons that specifically exist in Toronto.
Imagine warm toned mid rises lining along Eglinton, with building heights gently ascending away from the arterial.to perhaps 30 stories-tops. But, obviously, that won't happen/can't happen due to various intractable reasons that specifically exist in Toronto.
jozl
Active Member
I don't like it. I'd rather see mid rise development and "real" neighborhoods developed. I agree with you Irishmonk. This is a lazy proposal especially considering the huge amount of developable land on this site. No reason not to build mid rise here.
ProjectEnd
Superstar
Well the argument ('reason', as you put it), is you fundamentally get more people in a high rise. Your liking or not liking the built form is another thing, but there certainly are 'reasons' for it and 'laziness' isn't one of them.
Northern Light
Superstar
People have seen the Christie's site and know what's possible with with a very dense (and often tall) built form.
This is an off-the-rack proposal that seems cold and doesn't give a sense of an appealing street scene at grade.
It's lazy not because it's tall or because it's dense or because no work was involved in the conception and drawings.
It's lazy because there was no creativity with an eye to making human-scaled, street-level scenes that people actually enjoy; and incorporating warmth through colour and materiality.
Last edited:
ProjectEnd
Superstar
Couple of things: You're certainly not wrong in that the Christie's plan is better and fundamentally more ambitious. At the end of the day though, we've not seen what Pemberton will do to it. Only time will tell. Second, this is Smart Centres, so at the end of the day, I'm impressed that they even went with aA...
At the end of the day, @Irishmonk and @jozl we're specifically talking about built form and their desire for mid-rise over high-rise here. That's what my post was addressing.
At the end of the day, @Irishmonk and @jozl we're specifically talking about built form and their desire for mid-rise over high-rise here. That's what my post was addressing.