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

Re: Height Increase

3Dementia, thanks for that info. The excuses that we were hearing ("they just need to sell three more units in another building before they start") just never made sense.
 
What about the site plan? The previous (60 + 20 stories, right?) had a driveway off Yonge instead of Gerrard...which I found rather inexcusable.
 
Whistler:

I fail to see what's wrong with it. Without a rendering with the appropriate materials and colours we can't really judge what this will look like. The massing looks interesting and the design is different from 1 and 2 which most seem to agree is what we want. If the city doesn't like it due to style then fine, but if they're skeptical about it's height they obviously haven't had a good read of Toronto�s official plan.
Click to expand...

Actually, from the city perspective there is more to ground argue against this project on planning issues, which are considered legit, than stylistic ones, which aren't nearly as solid an argument. In addition, there is a difference between encouraging increased density from a planning carte blanche.

Here is a quote from the OP, 3.1.2 Built Form Policy:

3. New development will be massed to fit harmoniously into its surroundings and will respect and improve the local scale and character. It will minimize the impact on neighbouring buildings and open space by:

a) massing new building to frame adjacent streets and open spaces in a way that respects the existing and/or planned street proportion;
b) creating a transition in scale to neighbouring buildings;
c) providing adequate privacy, sunlight and sky view ensuring adequate separation between building walls; and
d) minimizing shadows and uncomfortable wind conditions on neighbouring properties and open space.

and 3.13 Built Form - Tall Buildings Policy:

2. Tall building proposals must, at a minimum, address key urban design considerations such as:

a) meet the built form principles of this plan;
b) demonstrate how the proposed building and site design will contribute to and reinforce the overall City structure;
c) demonstrate how the proposed building and site design relate to adjacent buildings and blocks within the immediate neighbourhood;
d) minimize the negative impact of shadows, sky view and wind on adjacent public areas including streets, parks, open spaces;
e) take into account the relationship of the site to topography and other tall buildings;
f) minimize the negative impact of shadows, sky view and wind on neighbouring private properties and residential neighbourhoods;
g) provide adequate transition between taller buildings and the adjacent lower scaled buildings;
h) provide high quality, comfortable and usable publicly accessible open spaces and areas; and
i) meet all other policies of this Plan.

I am not sure if these issues are satisified, particularly re: context and transition.

AoD
 
Wow everyone is so critical of this new rendering. Personally I like it better than the old one. At least it's not a simple box. Although a 10-storey podium would have been nice. But a shorter podium makes the tower look all the taller. And it is a TALL one!
 
dashingdan:

Actually, some of us are critical as to the appropriateness of the project for the site AND the built form with respect to the podium. Just because it's tall doesn't mean it's worthy, and as much as we like tall buildings, making a building feel that way isn't necessarily an urban interest.

AoD
 
It reminds me a little of Columbia Seafirst centre in Seattle in that one rendering.

The good thing is that this is preliminary and maybe the city will push for a stronger podium. Im not really sure what made them take it out from the intial design though.
 
I don't know what to make of it, but I'm getting a very bad feeling about the podium. I think the previous idea of a 10-storey podium was very sensible.

Thanks for the confirmation re: 1 BE. Hopefully someone with a good track record (hello Gulf) will scoop this property up and will give us a landmark building. This is one place that seriously needs to get redeveloped.
 
Gah. So much negativity.

I'm not saying it's not deserved mind you, but as it is now we don't have much to go on.
 
AoD:

Would you like this version if it had a 10-storey podium?
 
It looks at first glance that this design for RoCP III has a three-story podium, but look at the overall height of the podium, compared to the 'standard' floor above it. I measured it, plus the short half-deck immediately above it, on my monitor as being nine regular floors in height. On careful examination, the upper of the three 'floors' is definitely divided into three levels, plus the 'half-deck' above it makes four floors. The height of the first two 'floors' on the diagram, is slightly more than the upper 'floor' plus the half-deck, about the right amount for five floors, for a total of nine floors, matching the calculated number from the podium's height compared to the floors above it.

I conclude that the podium is actually nine floors in height, and merely looks like it is only three floors in height because of its exterior division into three portions.

Bill

EDIT -- After I wrote the above, I directly measured the podium (plus half-deck) with my mouse curser -- as opposed to just making tick marks on a piece of paper pressed against the screen. It measures as just a hair over three mouse cursers in height on my monitor. According to the floor indicator on the side, that equals nine regular floors in height.
 
Actually no, thats bad. It could mean counsel dislikes other things about it ... like height.

I would like to see a better render, however, I much prefer this design to the boring box of the first design.
 
Mongo:
Sorry, but the second rendering from the left clearly shows that the podium is only three floors: there are floor numbers along the left side of the building. Those floors are higher than normal, but I would be surprised if they were much higher than 6 regular floors. That's not 9 floors, but it's better than around the corner at RoCP 1 and 2.

3Dementia:
Can you please clarify what you mean by "planning is not supportvie at all?" Jackhammer is mentioning "counsel" (council) above, but you did not mention them, so I'm wondering if you could flesh out your comment more clearly please.

42
 
The new render reminds me of Columbia Centre in Seattle so I can't say I entirely dislike the overall form but the podium remains a concern.
 
42:

If you re-read the staff comments in the original PDF (the link on page 2 of this thread) for the 60/20 two-tower proposal, it says it all... namely 19.5 times coverage for a block zoned for 7.8, a maximum height of 116 m and ... the fact that they don't want a tall building on Yonge Street (zoned low and medium density)... they want something appropriate to the existing scale.

The big 75 storey fella essentially sits right on Yonge. If it was on Bay, I'd wager staff would be much more supportive since that's the preference (remember the already tall RoCP 1 and 2 managed an additional height increase).

Tall buildings at Yonge and Bloor are ok, in part because 2 subway lines connect. They apparently don't see Yonge/College (streetcar and subway) proximity to these lands as close enough.... can't agree with that.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top