Automation Gallery
Superstar
Yeah, but the original design was too tall for some, this unfortunately is what you get when city planning, developers. and area residents, squabble over a couple feet here and couple feet there
Toronto CampusOne Student Residence (was University Place) | 79.85m | 25s | Knightstone | Diamond Schmitt
- Thread starter Observer Walt
- Start date
AlvinofDiaspar
Moderator
Let's pretend that original design would have avoided value engineering, etc.
AoD
AoD
maestro
Senior Member
Let's not pretend that this is a privately built student residence and they tend to reside on the lowest rung of the architecture ladder. You're deluded yourself if you think the developer would have proceeded with a 40 plus storey building of glass curtainwall. It's unfortunate a couple more feet couldn't have been shaved off the top of the approved design (using your definition of a couple feet being 10 storeys) Campus Common ( Dundas and Church?) is far uglier with even worse massing but, at least it's short.
The problem with this one is that it's too tall for its surrounding. Better cladding or an improved mass still wouldn't address that issue. To bring up the original proposed height as a solution is just, humbly, nuts.
Last edited:
G.L.17
Senior Member
Gerrard and Church.
ADRM
Senior Member
I believe that this building—on a rather irregularly shaped lot—fits various stepbacks required by the tall buildings guidelines. I think that the final GFA was determined that way too: what fits on this property while respecting the new guidelines.
Surprise surprise, the guidelines, only written with 'good planning' in mind, have nothing to do with producing a good piece of architecture. Those are far harder to create with a system where mathematical formulas trumps all else.
I would expand the power of the DRP to reject or direct plans. (New provincial legislation would likely be required.) I would require that developers present more fully fleshed-out renderings of the building in a detailed context. (With the 3D models of the city that have been created it should not be difficult to fully explore a massing model from virtually any local vantage point.) I would have a minimum fenestration requirement for each major room on an outside wall, something that would at least double the amount of windows on these walls.
Architects and developers wouldn't want the straightjackets placed on them, but if we cannot stop atrocities like this with the current system, then the system has to change, somehow.
42
Surprise surprise, the guidelines, only written with 'good planning' in mind, have nothing to do with producing a good piece of architecture. Those are far harder to create with a system where mathematical formulas trumps all else.
I would expand the power of the DRP to reject or direct plans. (New provincial legislation would likely be required.) I would require that developers present more fully fleshed-out renderings of the building in a detailed context. (With the 3D models of the city that have been created it should not be difficult to fully explore a massing model from virtually any local vantage point.) I would have a minimum fenestration requirement for each major room on an outside wall, something that would at least double the amount of windows on these walls.
Architects and developers wouldn't want the straightjackets placed on them, but if we cannot stop atrocities like this with the current system, then the system has to change, somehow.
42
maestro
Senior Member
I strongly oppose the DRP having authoritative measures. It may raise the minimum standard but, developers are very quick to figure out what DRPs like. You end up with Vancouver; overwrought tower massing and finishes that still manage a homogeneous appearance. It also wouldn't affect the quality of this privately funded student residence as much as the aforementioned math, The math is what's wrong here. This shouldn't be taller than 10 to 12 floors.
Better design comes through subsidization (housing programs) and long term debt financing to participant that don't just see rental housing of all types as a flip. Firms like Knightstone usually just want to get their money and walk away before the building falls apart.
Better design comes through subsidization (housing programs) and long term debt financing to participant that don't just see rental housing of all types as a flip. Firms like Knightstone usually just want to get their money and walk away before the building falls apart.
Blacksheep
New Member
anonymous0024
Active Member
From today:
drum118
Superstar
Jan 16
The building is to loose its tower crane this weekend by the looks of things.
The building is to loose its tower crane this weekend by the looks of things.
stjames2queenwest
Senior Member
Every time I see this I hope to see a contrasting cladding added. Is it really going to all be that grey? At this point I'd even be somewhat relieved to see a lighter grey spandrel added.
It's just so frumpy.
It's just so frumpy.
maestro
Senior Member
Splitting hairs really but, adding more cladding options isn't going to improve the look at all. I'd be very pleased if it was all brick from top to bottom despite the heaviness of brick.
Brutal! And it's not even done yet. Rather they kept the insulation cladding instead of more of what's coming.
Gphorce
Active Member
Ho boy, this one is a doozy.
christiesplits
Senior Member
Sweet heavens. The worst downtown project in awhile. Shame on the university, shame on the city for approving this towering bunker, and shame on the Toronto chattering class which continues to place D+S on a pedestal.