Toronto 87 Peter | 156.05m | 49s | Menkes | Core Architects

wonder why they didn't put a single row of units (single loaded hallway) on the frontage screening the parking garage behind it .... quite commonly done
 
The floor plate is too small to have units and a functional garage.
 
Is the above-ground parking here public parking? The whole point of allowing that at Cinema Tower was as part of the Bell Lightbox parking considerations. Why a tower like 87 Peter was permitted to have above-ground parking is a head-scratcher to me. But public parking or not, the west building elevation could have been handled much better.
 
The residential parking is underground. Above ground is a commercial lot. I don't think it will be managed by Green P. It wasn't a Green P surface lot. None of the turn of the century buildings in the areas have sufficient parking so I can understand why it may have being allowed here.

It's not the worst thing. I've seen worst in the US where above grade parking garages are king. It suits the grey dud of building quite well.
 
Noir? Non, gris.

DSC06588.jpg

DSC06593.jpg

DSC06592.jpg


42
 

Attachments

  • DSC06588.jpg
    DSC06588.jpg
    644.7 KB · Views: 408
  • DSC06592.jpg
    DSC06592.jpg
    305.8 KB · Views: 448
  • DSC06593.jpg
    DSC06593.jpg
    674.7 KB · Views: 415
Bond is bland, but I wouldn't call it *bad*. This is tougher. I always prefer to wait to project completion to offer final judgement though, so lets wait and see how this turns out. Maybe that public art will end up saving it.
 
Yeah, I don't think the built form is terrible; it's the cladding that ruins it for me (oui, c'est tres gris), and I'm happy for a few reasons to assume that's more on Menkes than Core. With different materials, it'd could've been more reminiscent of its neighbour, 101 Peter, than of any other of Menkes' worst hits.

upload_2018-2-1_10-35-3.png
 

Attachments

  • upload_2018-2-1_10-35-3.png
    upload_2018-2-1_10-35-3.png
    101.6 KB · Views: 394
The building form is terrible. The dimensions and cantilevered balconies make it fat and stubby yet it's 150 metres tall. Some setbacks as the tower rises or a nice crown (heck, even glass fins with open ends) would have helped.

Bond isn't comparable. It's bland. It has a nicer profile and cladding.
 
Does anyone know how planning policy changes can be brought about/recommended to the Planning Department? I find that the massing for these towers is incredibly hulking and could use NYC style mandated setbacks. The 750 m2 floorplate maximum is nowhere near enough to minimize the impact of the behemoths when building heights are so tall. I fear some of these projects are glass renditions of the St.Jamestown development with slightly improved at grade interaction....
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top