UrbanAffair
Senior Member
ok great that 501 won't look like the renders? Can someone who has seen it then give us a discription of what it will look like or is the whole thing classified?
Toronto 88 Scott Street | 203.9m | 58s | Concert | P + S / IBI
- Thread starter yyzer
- Start date
Solaris
Senior Member
Really? Does Elevation drawings prepared by aA submitted in support of a Rezoning application filed at the City Planning Department not mean anything? Please don't be accusing me of anything you are not SURE of yourself.
In the contrary why you are so keen to defend the proposal and insisting that it is of high quality? Just because of your seniority and it is by aA??
Mongo ... no the drawings released was submitted as (official) Elevations drawings in support of the 501 Yonge Zoning By-law Amendment application, it is not a 'just a conceptual sketch' nor preliminary massing.
UrbanAffair
Senior Member
Ok great that it won't look like 2 boxes. Can someone who has seen the actual renders give us a discription of what the buildings will look like? Or is the whole thing classified?
Sorry, but yes, the plan is embargoed for the time being. All we can tell you that it is much more interesting than what is in the application.
Please don't repeat yourself so soon mckarisma.
42
Please don't repeat yourself so soon mckarisma.
42
marcus_a_j
Senior Member
PE has stated before that he has seen the renderings, and that what was submitted in support of the rezoning application is not the final rendition. The submitted elevations are "official" for zoning purposes to establish the various site-specific exceptions. This happens all the time. Two examples off the top of my head are Expo City in Vaughan and 2183 Lake Shore. With Expo City, the most recent render does not look anything like the initial Kirkor elevations/renderings that were used to achieve zoning and OPA approvals. This is why municipalities (especially Toronto) want site plan applications submitted as well so that there is a better understanding of what the proposed building looks like when the applications are being reviewed and eventually going before the various committees and Council for approval. I am not aware of a site plan application being submitted for 501 Yonge (admittedly, I have not checked the planning application status website to know for sure).
vegeta_skyline
Senior Member
Its a safe assumption based on aA's history that 501 Yonge will be 'boxy', but I would love for them to prove me wrong.
Otherwise the question becomes will it at least incorporate interesting visual features like the 4 Seasons? Or will it simply be another Maruno/Casa/Clear Spirit etc clone.
Its like a rollercoster, perhaps there's just too much going on for your mind to handle.
You do of course have the option of going on the kiddy rides. Its highly unlikely you'll vomit there, not with their safe, conservative and stale designs.
Otherwise the question becomes will it at least incorporate interesting visual features like the 4 Seasons? Or will it simply be another Maruno/Casa/Clear Spirit etc clone.
Its like a rollercoster, perhaps there's just too much going on for your mind to handle.
You do of course have the option of going on the kiddy rides. Its highly unlikely you'll vomit there, not with their safe, conservative and stale designs.
Last edited:
WiddleBittyKitty
Felis catus
Solaris
Senior Member
I think ICE is a very selected (if not only) example where aA did a not box design
vegeta_skyline
Senior Member
Yes because we all know a design like ICE is the norm for them right?
Not even close, but here's a great example;
I'm not even going to take that seriously coming from you.
Last edited:
I would add that aA's design for Market Wharf incorporates waves (undulating curves) in the balconies, but I agree with the cat that Ãce is a significant enough project (must be the largest aA project ever) that it should preclude us from assuming that 501 Yonge might only feature straight lines.
That said, I can reiterate that what has been presented for 501 so far is not the whole story. Lanterra is holding back at the moment, looking to capitalize on the a big reveal at the time that marketing commences, as reports are that it is spectacular.
All of that said - please - can we move on here? Not that it is wrong to compare projects in UT threads, but the snippy tone here is not helpful.
Thanks!
42
That said, I can reiterate that what has been presented for 501 so far is not the whole story. Lanterra is holding back at the moment, looking to capitalize on the a big reveal at the time that marketing commences, as reports are that it is spectacular.
All of that said - please - can we move on here? Not that it is wrong to compare projects in UT threads, but the snippy tone here is not helpful.
Thanks!
42
ProjectEnd
Superstar
Sorry 42, I know you've asked us to stop and I promise this will be my last reply.
Yes Solaris, Really.
What really bowls me over is some members' fundamental distrust of other posters. People become so invested in their feelings, they don't take the time to listen to what posters opposite are actually saying. Solaris, you're accusing me of 'defending' a proposal on the ridiculous grounds of 'seniority' or that it is by a firm which I happen to like. Did it not occur to you that I might be closer to the project than most people on this board (save for eavesdropping Lanterra folk)? Lex parsimoniae much?
I've already addressed that what was contained in 501 Yonge's application document does not reflect what Lanterra and aA are planning here. Unfortunately, you've chosen to ignore what was written and continue to believe, quite erroneously, that it is what will be built. If you believe that what is contained in rezoning applications is ever an accurate reflection of what will be built then you're sadly mislead.
As I and a number of other members have explained, 'zoning' and subsequent 'rezoning' establishes (among other things) an invisible, three-dimensional box which extends around the future building. It allows the city to get a sense of the size of the building and nothing more. No laws state that the drawings must be architecturally correct, but merely that what will be constructed will fall inside of that invisible box. In an application things like the number of suites and parking figures for cars and bikes are indeed accurate, but the design presented does necessarily have much bearing on what will be constructed. This is the case at 501 Yonge.
mckarisma: 42 is correct. The details are classified for now.
Yes Solaris, Really.
What really bowls me over is some members' fundamental distrust of other posters. People become so invested in their feelings, they don't take the time to listen to what posters opposite are actually saying. Solaris, you're accusing me of 'defending' a proposal on the ridiculous grounds of 'seniority' or that it is by a firm which I happen to like. Did it not occur to you that I might be closer to the project than most people on this board (save for eavesdropping Lanterra folk)? Lex parsimoniae much?
I've already addressed that what was contained in 501 Yonge's application document does not reflect what Lanterra and aA are planning here. Unfortunately, you've chosen to ignore what was written and continue to believe, quite erroneously, that it is what will be built. If you believe that what is contained in rezoning applications is ever an accurate reflection of what will be built then you're sadly mislead.
As I and a number of other members have explained, 'zoning' and subsequent 'rezoning' establishes (among other things) an invisible, three-dimensional box which extends around the future building. It allows the city to get a sense of the size of the building and nothing more. No laws state that the drawings must be architecturally correct, but merely that what will be constructed will fall inside of that invisible box. In an application things like the number of suites and parking figures for cars and bikes are indeed accurate, but the design presented does necessarily have much bearing on what will be constructed. This is the case at 501 Yonge.
mckarisma: 42 is correct. The details are classified for now.
cassius
Active Member
The top of the tower looks good to me. It's active enough to draw attention but not overly busy, and with the minor exception of the box sticking (which I don't dislike) out its not at all nonsensical. Each setback and elevation in height make sense in my opinion.
UrbanAffair
Senior Member
cool. Sorry about that, it appear as though the post didnät make it so I simply reposted.
Why may i ask would they embargoe the design, are they worried someone would steal it and throw up the same thing somewhere else? Its kind of bizarre and unnecessarily exclusive to me but perhaps I am missing something.
Edit: just read that we are all moving on, so I will too, lets let it go, all be friends and see what happens with 501. I personally think 88 Scott looks great, but worry about the amount of spandrel.
Last edited:
azzo
New Member
hahaha "conservative, stale designs"
Personally I am very tired of meat grinder architecture in Toronto- If I was the developer of this project I would fire the architect- But then again we are dealing with a developer and a consumer who has no knowledge or consideration for what is good and what is bad.
azzo
New Member
of course I will get some flak about that comment in regards to beauty is in the eye of the beholder