Toronto 64 Prince Arthur | 46.1m | 13s | Forgestone | RAW Design

It's definitely high on the coolness metre with its angles, twists and, turns but it is also inelegant and awkward. Maybe it's just me. Maybe it's not fair to compared it to Kengo Kuma's sculptural contribution for 1550 Alberni in Vancouver.
 
LMVDR said:
Good thing you don't work in the planning department.
Click to expand...

I almost went back to school for planning but decided not to because I thought I could have more power as a citizen organizing and writing to planners and politicians about planning decisions in the neighbourhood where I live and work. Maybe this is true, maybe not.

But I will write about this one in support of it. I haven't seen the details yet but my only complaint right now is that I wish it were taller!
 
If it had been a Toronto firm designing this, we would have got another box and called it a day.
 
Bravo for the design but with the park and single family homes just metres north of the site, I am not sure this is the appropriate spot for such a tall design. It will be interesting to see how this plays out. If anything, this will become shorter with time (in the planning process).
 
greenleaf said:
I almost went back to school for planning but decided not to because I thought I could have more power as a citizen organizing and writing to planners and politicians about planning decisions in the neighbourhood where I live and work. Maybe this is true, maybe not.

But I will write about this one in support of it. I haven't seen the details yet but my only complaint right now is that I wish it were taller!
Click to expand...

There are plenty of places for tall buildings in the city. Perhaps infinite places. The Annex. Is not. One of them.

This proposal is ridiculous and conforms to nothing that city planners or residents would desire on this street. You can love the building, just some drawings really, from a quality architectural firm and a laughably inexperiened developer all you want. Put it downtown. Put it at Yonge and Eglinton, put in anywhere close to Yonge really.

But this is a mid rise block if ever there called out for one. Get this garbage out of here.
 
Adjei said:
If it had been a Toronto firm designing this, we would have got another box and called it a day.
Click to expand...

If only any of these were designs from Toronto firms...


source


source

source

urbantoronto-4708-15459.jpg

source

image-jpeg.91149

source


source

and so on...
 
LMVDR said:
The Annex. Is not. One of them.
Click to expand...

There. Are. Already. Tall. Buildings. In. The. Annex.

And one of them happens to be next door.

I'm not saying 29 is the right number, but I just can't really fathom an intellectual argument for why something close to it here (a 3-minute walk from two of the two subway lines in this city) doesn't make sense.
 
The Annex is right by the core boundary - and it already has a significant high rise population. Why are we elevating planning concerns over single family homes as if they are untouchable? Not impact on the surrounding high rises, but low density housing? We don't seem nearly as concerned when we cram density elsewhere, but god forbid you should place some next to the Annex .

AoD
 
Last edited:
AlvinofDiaspar said:
The Annex is right by the core boundary - and it already has a significant high rise population. Why are we elevating planning concerns over single family homes as if they are untouchable? Not impact on the surrounding high rises, but low density housing? We don't seem nearly as concerned when we cram density elsewhere, but god forbid you should place some next to the Annex .

AoD
Click to expand...

Low and mid rise areas need to be preserved in this city. Duplex north of Orchard View is a perfect example. Density creep would have killed that neighborhood but the residents fought hard and won. Keep the density on Yonge and along the areas or in apartment neighborhoods. Not low or mid rise neighborhoods.

I am very pro high density but this is not appropriate. 9 storeys on Davenport? No problem. Let's preserve the character of this great neighborhood for current and future generations.
 
LMVDR said:
Low and mid rise areas need to be preserved in this city. Duplex north of Orchard View is a perfect example. Density creep would have killed that neighborhood but the residents fought hard and won. Keep the density on Yonge and along the areas or in apartment neighborhoods. Not low or mid rise neighborhoods.

I am very pro high density but this is not appropriate. 9 storeys on Davenport? No problem. Let's preserve the character of this great neighborhood for current and future generations.
Click to expand...

Let's not be melodramatic considering the number of towers of comparable height within walking distance of this site. If the slab next door didn't wreck the neighbourhood, neither will this. Low rise neighbourhoods don't need to be preserved in this city absent an overriding worth - and no one is proposing the area getting blockbusted and redeveloped carte blanche in any case.

And thank you for bringing up apartment neighbourhoods again - it's a neat little way to dump growth elsewhere - not to preserve it for future generations (because altruism, right?), but to ensure the current one maintaining their way of life. I mean, stuffing another tower in St James Town is "good planning", a shorter tower that doesn't even eat up any existing POPSs is an affront.

AoD
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top