80 Bloor Street West | 248.5m | 72s | Krugarand | Giannone Petricone

adma

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
16,864
Reaction score
1,474
They should have stuck with the previous designs, but they probably knew they wouldn't be able to get it approved by the grannies at city planning.

Once again, the city can't decide whether they want boring or really boring buildings that will "fit in". As Banksy wrote last week, criticizing the design of the new world trade center building in N.Y., "it's plain vanilla...something they would build in Toronto"

Actually, Banksy statement-mongering notwithstanding, I'd counter-argue that a more "enlightened" approach to beholding and appreciating urbanity is not to lament Toronto's vanilla-ness, but to be able to intelligently appreciate NYC's rough architectural equivalents to the present-day 80 Bloor.

And I'm dead serious about that.
 

mrxbombastic

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
May 22, 2013
Messages
555
Reaction score
303
68s now and will be a density of 24.7 times (whoa!) the area of the lot: http://app.toronto.ca/tmmis/viewAgendaItemHistory.do?item=2014.TE31.44

Seems like staff make a pretty good case for issues with this design. Seems like a long way to go before we get anything acceptable from approvals rationale.

Big red flags for me is bloor street sidewalk encroachment, poor performance of connections and loss of office space.

Also have to say i think this thing is just ugly and over powering. it has next to no architectural finesse imo aside from a slight undulating in balcony lengths which once built will probably be so barely noticeable as to no stand out at all.
 

Uptowner

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Mar 6, 2014
Messages
114
Reaction score
18
Big red flags for me is bloor street sidewalk encroachment, poor performance of connections and loss of office space.

I agree with the first two but is the office space really a problem? The north-west corner of Bay and Bloor is sure to be redeveloped at some point. Do you think the loss of some existing capacity could be a catalyst for development on other lots?

I realize the weakness of that viewpoint is that it could have near universal application but do you still see something in it? I ask with genuine interest and not argumentatively.
 

greenleaf

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
May 16, 2007
Messages
2,592
Reaction score
1,441
Location
Downtown
I agree with the first two but is the office space really a problem? The north-west corner of Bay and Bloor is sure to be redeveloped at some point. Do you think the loss of some existing capacity could be a catalyst for development on other lots?

I realize the weakness of that viewpoint is that it could have near universal application but do you still see something in it? I ask with genuine interest and not argumentatively.

Yes, office space is important here. Employment space keeps this area thriving due to balance of commercial and residential. I wouldn't want to see this application move forward without replacing the office space. It would be nice to see the city impose some sort of office replacement for new developments on current office buildings, like when developers need to when rental units are removed in a new residential development. (Maybe this was included in the employment lands report the city put out in the past year?)

And I think the building at the NW corner of Bay & Bloor should be made heritage. A fine example of Toronto Modernism, a work by Canadian architecture firm Bregmann & Hamann.
 
Last edited:

maestro

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
7,203
Reaction score
2,124
Perhaps too great in height. You do have the Four Season nearby but, I don't see a lot of redevelopment opportunities on this side of Bay for additional towers of this height. The area is saturated with condo ownership. I'm not a fan of one or two towers standing 4 times the height of the rest of the neighbourhood.
 

ushahid

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Sep 26, 2013
Messages
3,077
Reaction score
3,763
Location
Vernon, BC
^it takes years for a seed to grow into a tree. may be this is the beginning and more is coming. there might be more tower proposed for this area with almost the same height.
 

Hipster Duck

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 24, 2007
Messages
3,558
Reaction score
8
This building isn't unusual, heightwise, for the area. There's the 50 Bloor proposal (taller), 1 Bloor East (identical height) and the 4S (20 meters lower) all within several blocks.

While we can't judge the building based on technical drawings alone, the basic design of the building doesn`t appear to be terribly exciting, either.
 

Automation Gallery

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
May 5, 2007
Messages
12,654
Reaction score
3,251
Location
South Parkdale
This building isn't unusual, height wise, for the area. There's the 50 Bloor proposal (taller), 1 Bloor East (identical height) and the 4S (20 meters lower) all within several blocks.

Dont forget, 27-37 Yorkville Avenue and 50 Cumberland Street, where the taller tower will be 238 meters, also Cumberland Terrace (2 Bloor west) is now one bldg. rumoured at 250m +
By the way, 1 Bloor east is now listed at 75s/257 meters
 

maestro

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
7,203
Reaction score
2,124
^it takes years for a seed to grow into a tree. may be this is the beginning and more is coming. there might be more tower proposed for this area with almost the same height.

It's close enough to the proposed towers on the east side of Bay that it should be fine however, don't expect much more on the west side on Bloor. It's one condo after another.
 

mrxbombastic

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
May 22, 2013
Messages
555
Reaction score
303
I agree with the first two but is the office space really a problem? The north-west corner of Bay and Bloor is sure to be redeveloped at some point. Do you think the loss of some existing capacity could be a catalyst for development on other lots?

I realize the weakness of that viewpoint is that it could have near universal application but do you still see something in it? I ask with genuine interest and not argumentatively.

I understand completely and I think there is merit to its idea. I just don't think it is how we should go about encouraging employment/office growth in downtown or else where for that matter.

If you squeeze the area to much rents might become too uncompetitive and you may see firma moving out and hence no office space redevelopment. Following that if office developers see move by businessmen out of area less pressure and incentive to build new space.

I agree entirely with Greenleaf that as general policy office space should need to be retained in all redevelopments and owness(spelling?) Should be on developers to prove why there is no use to having office space in redevelopment. I.e no market demand for area office market, over supply etc...

Office slave keeps area alive and vibrant round the clock with employees rather then just morning and evening with residential.
 

Automation Gallery

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
May 5, 2007
Messages
12,654
Reaction score
3,251
Location
South Parkdale
What id give to see a new office tower go up in this area, 1 Bloor west would be my bet:cool:
..if lately they can plan office towers for Front + Spadina, and King + Peter, i dont see why not @ Bloor/Yonge
 

fedplanner

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jan 11, 2012
Messages
572
Reaction score
18
Location
NYC
Yes, office space is important here. Employment space keeps this area thriving due to balance of commercial and residential. I wouldn't want to see this application move forward without replacing the office space. It would be nice to see the city impose some sort of office replacement for new developments on current office buildings, like when developers need to when rental units are removed in a new residential development. (Maybe this was included in the employment lands report the city put out in the past year?)

Good idea and I completely agree. The problem is there is no zoning or formal city policy which directs developers to replace any office space lost during redevelopment. There was an OMB case I was following in Yonge and Eglington where the city's desire for office space in a residential building was thrown out of consideration because it wasn't reflected in any of the planning documents. Even the OMB's biggest detractors can't find fault on them for this one.

The city needs to do the right think and incorporate a provision in the zoning code to encourage or require the retention office space when redeveloping a commercial building.

On another note, this tower could really use the critique of the design review panel.
 

Top