Toronto Queen Central | 106.23m | 34s | Parallax | Arcadis

First and foremost the tower is too far forward on the site (towards Queen)

It's simply too imposing on the heritage buildings.

I'm not sure what the right set back would be; I'm positive it's greater than what we are seeing here, another 5M from Queen for sure.

The preservation of the heritage itself doesn't seem too bad, and the fine-granularity of the retail (or the illusion of it), seems to be retained.

While I"ve seen far worse in towers........I'm not sold on this.

I'm in complete agreement with @jje1000 that the roofline feels wrong. If fact I agree with the rest of what he's saying too.....while we certainly don't want a botched attempted at a historical-esque tower, the modernity here is just crudely juxtaposed with a very different architectural style. It could be contemporary but still feel sympathetic or complimentary to the existing built form. At the very least, less awkward and interposing.

They actually did an ok job w/the new build podium on the corner, and that might have served as a better jumping off point for the tower.
 
This 2009 Streetview below shows the rather fine Richard Bigley building and the ones to its east.

Bigley was described in Toronto Life as:

Who was “Bigley” of the Richard Bigley building at Queen and Mutual?

BY TORONTO LIFE | JULY 11, 2007

Who was “Bigley” of the Richard Bigley building at Queen and Mutual? And is it true that this is the oldest ghost sign in North America?—Hugo Bernier, Downtown
Ghost signs—ancient ads left painted on walls long after businesses have folded and owners have passed on—are scattered around Toronto. (There is a sizable number on Sorauren Avenue, west of Lansdowne.) Most surviving ones date to the early 20th century, and spotters say Bigley’s is indeed the oldest they know of in the city. But since ghost signs are continually uncovered as billboards are removed and adjacent buildings demolished, it’s hard to say what might still be lurking. Richard Bigley went into business as a 22-year-old woodworker in 1875 but later became a well-known man about town by selling the Happy Thought line of stoves (“_‘Grate’ Happiness at Home” promised an 1885 ad in the Globe). The building that bears his name was finished in 1876. As for Bigley, he died in 1933 and was eulogized in the papers as a “noted stove man.” In the 1970s, his little building spawned a giant one: this was where architect Eb Zeidler drew up plans for the Eaton Centre.



bigley.jpg
 
Toronto Model 01-04-19 90Queen.png

Toronto Model 01-04-19 90Queen2.png
 
Last edited:
I love the lack of balconies -- clean lines... with some setback for terraces, very elegant. I love how the sidewalk is being widened at the corner. I'm surprised they aren't using 98 as the address? for the lucky "8" vs "90"
 
The Developer has added an Info Website, for those who want to track the progress of the Development.

Not surprising it is not 90 Queen East, but www.98queen.com probably a combo of using a "lucky 8" and the crown jewel of the development is the Richard Bigley Building who's address is 98 Queen East not 90.
 
Step-out from floors 8 to 18 has been removed, average tower floor plate is now 757 square metres.

Screen Shot 2019-07-30 at 12.51.38 PM.png
Screen Shot 2019-07-30 at 12.50.56 PM.png
Screen Shot 2019-07-30 at 12.52.06 PM.png
Screen Shot 2019-07-30 at 12.52.25 PM.png


app.toronto.ca

Application Information Centre

Search for details about current planning applications and Minor variance and Consent applications. Application Information Centre For best results, please use the latest version of Microsoft IE/Edge, Google Chrome or Mozilla Firefox. The Application Information Centre allows you to: Search by...
app.toronto.ca app.toronto.ca
 
Clumsy. This is what happens when the planning dept's massing rules dictate design instead of regulating performance.

That first rendering is especially poignant. It's incredible to me that planners applaud themselves for this. I assure you no architect wants to design within such a ridiculous massing envelope, but here we are.
 
.dwg said:
Clumsy. This is what happens when the planning dept's massing rules dictate design instead of regulating performance.

That first rendering is especially poignant. It's incredible to me that planners applaud themselves for this. I assure you no architect wants to design within such a ridiculous massing envelope, but here we are.
Click to expand...

What planning regulation is setting that envelope behind the standard 3m tower setback from the podium?
 
You know very well that there are very specific massings that the city will accept, while rejecting the notion of just about any other alternative. This means point towers on podiums; podiums of a specific height; tower floorplates of a particular size and articulation; a very specifically desired universal treatment of heritage regardless of context. The Tall Building Guidelines are a major part of this.

Any condo tower in this city begins with a shaping exercise that emerges from urban design reports that are created based on what the city will accept at a given location - it's very restrictive and essentially prescribes the resulting massing. I can't begin to explain the countless design exercises I have gone through where we were able to demonstrate a massing that created a much more desirable fit for its environment (i.e. a streetwall where there is currently a streetwall and where a dinky podium looks ridiculous and feels out of place - and where the resulting floorplate created better units or amenity - but was rendered impossible in the face of a very prescriptive planning envelope. This is not how good housing or architecture are made. Don't get me wrong, we need planning oversight and developers are all too happy to do the point-tower-on-a-podium-schtick. But in their inability (and lack of resources) to keep up with the current pace of development proposals, the planning department has encouraged and enforced a very prescriptive and formulaic approach to development in this city.

So no, the planning envelope is not only restricted according to the 3m setback. (And these days, they were likely asking for 10m setback since there is a heritage property on the site.) Every architect and developer in this city knows what flies at the planning department and what does not. Planning studies like the Golden Mile Secondary Plan or Consumers Road Secondary Plan are other examples of the absolute fixation our planning department has on this massing format, not to mention places like Yonge Street or Queen Street where it can feel particularly out of place.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top