Toronto 191 Bay | 301.74m | 64s | QuadReal | Hariri Pontarini

Automation Gallery said:
Lets not go there with the BS,
Click to expand...

Ok last post. I quickly searched your post history. Here are some highlights. Reading this its clear you dislike her and regard her as anti development. Hate is a little strong.

"Sorry to say, she is one of the most anti-development councilors of the pile" Feb 14/2013

"I think councilor Tam has to sit down a bit more with Adam Vaughan and learn a lesson or two on how to compromise (with developers and area residents) on some of these big projects going down in her ward...she is definitely a sophomore when it comes to city development." Feb 23/2012

":eek:Wow, this deal is going to give KWT an ulcer... " Mar 7/2013

"The media, papers, and even KWT, are all saying that the bulding. is over 100 years old, thats not true:eek:" Jan 19/2015

""Phew that stinks!" ..the only reason she and her left wing colleagues are pissed-off is because they were not invoved in that decision..otherwise if Ford had gone for it, Kristyn and her cronies would have been the first to shoot it down.
Nothing but socialist propaganda...cant believe she finds time to write that crap." Sept 2/2011
 
rbt said:
It's not exactly unrestricted spending; there are a ton of rules as to what section 37 funds can be applied to. Basically boils down to spending on public parks within a certain radius of the project.

So yeah, the councillor will get to choose which of the projects that planning puts forward gets built. Of course, one of the reasons for large value of banked section 37 funds is planning hasn't had any ideas for projects that might qualify.
Click to expand...
Section 42 funds are for parks improvements.

Though I suppose Section 37 can contribute to park programming or other benefits if the local councilor so desired.
 
The current plan is so flawed. Demolish two I. M. Pei buildings, crowd the most iconic heritage building in the FD and reduce the size of the best urban space in the downtown. How did this application get as far as it did? If at a minimum, Heritage Preservation Services was doing its job, it would have been rejected at the start.
31A3A82B-8AA1-495E-A22F-53F7238904AD.jpeg
 
Last edited:
thecharioteer said:
The current plan is so flawed. Demolish two I. M. Pei buildings, crowd the most iconic heritage building in the FD and reduce the size of the best urban space in the downtown. How did this application get as far as it did? If at a minimum, Heritage Preservation Services was doing its job, it would have been rejected at the start. View attachment 205896
Click to expand...
I agree. Wrong place. Wrong building.
 
thecharioteer said:
The current plan is so flawed. Demolish two I. M. Pei buildings, crowd the most iconic heritage building in the FD and reduce the size of the best urban space in the downtown. How did this application get as far as it did? If at a minimum, Heritage Preservation Services was doing its job, it would have been rejected at the start. View attachment 205896
Click to expand...

Honestly. And despite its mediocre design, people still want it to be taller -_-
 
Yegger said:
Honestly. And despite its mediocre design, people still want it to be taller -_-
Click to expand...
Yeah i admit it's not the greatest design, but saying that people want it taller?...for goodness sake, it's in the heart of the Financial District, where else can people think that things can be built taller?
 
So, just trying to follow your logic here - since it's not the greatest design, we should go ahead and make it as tall as possible? Height compensating for mediocrity of design & execution?
 
Lenser said:
So, just trying to follow your logic here - since it's not the greatest design, we should go ahead and make it as tall as possible? Height compensating for mediocrity of design & execution?
Click to expand...
So if an office building design isn't acceptable to some ..lets shrink it or maybe not bother building it at all?
Come on, when people here talk taller they talk 5-10 meters, we are not talking 400 - 500 meters in height here
 
I really like these existing mid-rise buildings - I walk past and around them a lot. They have sort of a classical feel in the repetition and clean lines. Hope nothing changes - but that is just a personal preference on my part.
 
Mr.Tang said:
I really like these existing mid-rise buildings - I walk past and around them a lot. They have sort of a classical feel in the repetition and clean lines. Hope nothing changes - but that is just a personal preference on my part.
Click to expand...
And we're losing them for an all glass style window facade!
 
The tower specifically:

Let's face it this is a(n) HP fail (doesn't happen often). Any 2nd year arch student (and probably a few UT folks) could draw this in an hour.

I get the notion that there's a bit of homage (simplicity) to Pei's CIBC at King and Bay, but the sacrifice of the other Pei buildings screams "do better Mr. Pontarini". Starting to think a re-work of the original ill-shaped and proportioned design first shown has more merit.

But really, a project this size deserves some serious arch chops. If it's going to happen then make it great. It will fit in eventually.

P.S. the 1st shot of the UT slideshow shows one occupied floor. Serves them right ;-)
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top