Toronto 8 Elm | 218.2m | 69s | Reserve Properties | Arcadis

snSuaNG.png


XclNHnC.png
 
kweku said:
I really think it's about time we start being critical on design merits including materials other than just glass as opposed to Height excitement
We are getting too many ugly tall buildings that will eventually take away the beauty of our skyline
Click to expand...

The city is letting some of these developers get away with murder ! Letting them build cheap looking podiums, parapets and sometimes using cheap materials for the overall look.
 
cd concept said:
The city is letting some of these developers get away with murder ! Letting them build cheap looking podiums, parapets and sometimes using cheap materials for the overall look.
Click to expand...

I absolutely do NOT want the city approving or rejecting proposals based on aesthetic grounds. This would introduce a hugely subjective metric, based on whether the review board members "like the appearance" of a project. The opportunity for corruption would be massive.

Not to mention that demanding high-quality materials in ALL new construction would increase prices substantially, enough so that many people could no longer afford to buy -- which would also mean that the number of units built per year would steeply decline.
 
interchange42 said:
This would set a precedent for FSI here that the City won't want. The City is accepting an FSI of 25 across the street at YSL, these guys want 31.4. Meanwhile, these guys are planning 5 elevators for 727 units? Typically developers plan on 1 elevator per 100 units. 1 per 145? Hold would you like those wait times? I assume the 84 storey version is the opening gambit, and that they're actually expecting approval at substantially fewer floors, maybe around where they'd end up with around 500 units, maybe 600 if some floor space were given over to another elevator shaft.

42
Click to expand...

Is this application under original OMB rules or new LPAT rules? Seems to me that if it’s the old rules the precedent won’t matter.
 
That's subjective! I think the podium looks terrible, and is a total waste of the Victorian buildings on Yonge. Tear down the McDonalds, sure, but clean up the (non-heritage-listed but still character-filled) Victorians and keep their fine grain. The glass sheet facing the Yonge Street sidewalk? Yuck.

8elm1-jpg.159283
Click to expand...

42
 
interchange42 said:
That's subjective! I think the podium looks terrible, and is a total waste of the Victorian buildings on Yonge. Tear down the McDonalds, sure, but clean up the (non-heritage-listed but still character-filled) Victorians and keep their fine grain. The glass sheet facing the Yonge Street sidewalk? Yuck.



42
Click to expand...
I guess I spoke too soon. That Yonge frontage looks terrible.
 
Mongo said:
I absolutely do NOT want the city approving or rejecting proposals based on aesthetic grounds. This would introduce a hugely subjective metric, based on whether the review board members "like the appearance" of a project. The opportunity for corruption would be massive.

Not to mention that demanding high-quality materials in ALL new construction would increase prices substantially, enough so that many people could no longer afford to buy -- which would also mean that the number of units built per year would steeply decline.
Click to expand...

I can understand your views on some of these subjects . But you can really see the end results on some of theses projects. From what the original rendering called for . Making you wonder why advertise something great to put people's hopes up high. Then give them something half fast in the end . The final project should always top the original rendering idea .
 
cd concept said:
I can understand your views on some of these subjects . But you can really see the end results on some of theses projects. From what the original rendering called for . Making you wonder why advertise something great to put people's hopes up high. Then give them something half fast in the end . The final project should always top the original rendering idea .
Click to expand...

It's why some companies spend a fortune on marketing. It goes a long way.
 
We need to ask ourselves, what kind of developer is Pemberton group? do they build quality stuff like Great Gulf and Lanterra or do they build cheap stuff like Canderel and Gupta? if they are cheap builder then we need to worry about the quality and the looks, otherwise we should just wait for the finish product.
tbh I haven't seen any of their projects so I wont comment.
 
ushahid said:
We need to ask ourselves, what kind of developer is Pemberton group? do they build quality stuff like Great Gulf and Lanterra or do they build cheap stuff like Canderel and Gupta? if they are cheap builder then we need to worry about the quality and the looks, otherwise we should just wait for the finish product.
tbh I haven't seen any of their projects so I wont comment.
Click to expand...

Lanterra doesn't build cheap stuff? Eh, I have a completely different opinion of Lanterra than you do. Great Gulf is a reputable builder but even they have their duds. Pemberton is a quality builder and I'd even put them ahead of Lanterra in terms of quality construction. Not as flashy but I'd trust them more than Lanterra when it comes to that

Here are some past projects.
http://pembertongroup.com/past-projects/
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top