Toronto Aura at College Park | 271.87m | 78s | Canderel | Graziani + Corazza

Re: Re 1 BE site

Sir Novelty,

1. I don't know what kind of stone they intend to use.

2. Sorry - I did mean Yonge and Gerrard.
 
Re: Re 1 BE site

The podium is planned for 8 floors and will match the height of the original college park building.
Click to expand...

I feel vindicated ... I had posted when the rendering first came out that the podium appeared to be 8 or 9 floors in height, but was derided by various people saying that 'obviously' the podium was only 3 floors in height (despite the vast disparity in height between the height of the podium and the height of 3 'regular' floors).

So I am taking the opportunity to gloat a little ...

Bill
 
Re: Re 1 BE site

^^ Mongo/Bill, gloat all you want, but the rendering you are referring to shows the podium to be 3 double-height floors high, (with a partial 4th floor on the roof) - they are numbered 1,2,3 along the left side.

The plans for the podium have likely changed since the rendering was made, projects such as this normally do go through a number of versions before arriving at the final design.

Anyway, I wasn't deriding you; just disagreeing with you. I can be quite disagreeable at times.

42
 
Re: Re 1 BE site

Someone over at SSC said that council turned down this application. Is this true?
 
Re: Re 1 BE site

The refusal report confirms that College Park III is another Graziani and Corrazza design. Canderel's proposed architectural review panel included Eberhard Zeidler and Rene Menkes, with the third architect to be nominated by the city. Frankly I don't trust Zeidler anymore, and Menkes, as the M in WZMH, does not inspire any confidence in me either. WZMH have given us some good stuff, like Royal Bank Plaza and Scotia Plaza, but also some pretty lame stuff like the Maritime Life Tower at Queen and Yonge, so I'm not impressed with that choice either.

With the planning department calling on Canderel to submit major changes to the plan before they'll consider addressing another proposal, I wonder where this is going next. The OMB maybe? Or maybe we'll just see the sales ad for CP3 slip from the side of CP1 someday soon...

42
 
i actually really like that 75s tower's design, altho i really don't care for the podium or the way that the tower connects with its surroundings.
 
i like the design and the height is perfect for that location
maybe the will have to chop it down to about 200 meters
 
College Park Three

Let's face it, Toronto does not want tall buildings...period
 
Welcome to the board, oneillt. However that's just not true. There's Trump Tower, Bay Adelaide Centre 1 and 2, Ritz-Carlton, RBC Centre and Four Seasons off the top of my head. All of which are about the same height if not taller than this RoCP3 proposal.
 
Transition
Tall buildings should be located and massed to provide a transition between areas of different
development intensity and scale. Further, new buildings should be massed to fit harmoniously
into their surroundings and respect and improve the local scale and character.
Click to expand...

Thank god/allah whomever... that this politically-correct bureaucratize didn't exist when Mies' TD Centre was born. What if the exquisite Bank of Commerce never announced its skyscraping 36 storeys of limestone because it dared to ignore transition.

Or even (love 'em or hate 'em) when the big, brown Palace Pier monoliths/icons appeared, that have always said "shit I'm home... this is T.O.").

Why couldn't this brilliant transitional touchstone have been in place before the yonge and bloor ugly sisters were imposed on us? St. jamestown provided logical transition from three storey Victoria homes. Win some and lose some I guess.


The report states “…a process to ensure that the height is supported by exemplary
architecture. This process is underway with a panel comprised of Mr. Eberhards Zeidler and Mr.
Rene Menkes. An invitation was extended to Gary Wright (Director, Community Planning) to
have the City nominate a third eminent architect to the panel but there has been no indication of
an interest by the City in doing so.†Subject to Council’s consideration of this report and its
recommendations, City staff do not believe that a panel that focuses on the proposal’s
architecture as the means for support without better adherence or respect for Council’s in-force
planning approvals is advisable.
Click to expand...

Kelly (da planner) told me straight out months ago that "staff" (aka Kelly?) hated this proposal and it was doomed. Who the f*!^&# is staff? Folks that get great dental and tenure from my property taxes.

This mother (CP3) could be a 100 storeys tall and every goddamn resident would walk to work. Hmmmm. Walk to work. Hmmm. Better stop that crap.

There are no shadow issues. There are only issues of darkness that have always pervaded the civil(?) service mentality.

That quote from the report is particularly painful because it bears testimony to the ultimate T.Dot ambivalence (sounds like an Are Be Pointz, I know)... who gives a shit about architecture as a negotiating point.

None of us can pass judgement on a buch of elevations and brand this proposal ugly as hell, great architecture or sumptin' in between.

The good news is we'll never even get to argue the point.

I hate to leave town with a rant but hell... the name is Dementia.
 
"There are no shadow issues."

As you say, it's not just shadows they seem to have a problem with - they've rejected it for every reason imaginable. Perhaps this Kelly owns the 24 hour hot dog cart that does a brisk business on the corner.
 
It seems like they always have some excuse for why a project needs to be shorter, yet the real and far more important problem is the design of the building. This city allows absolute crap to go up which do nothing to improve the street life, but are concerned with shadows for 5 minutes a day. Why is it that quality is not on their radar?
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top