Toronto Chelsea Green (was 33 Gerrard) | 297.25m | 90s | Great Eagle | a—A

Better still, make it one tower being 150 story tall, casting a long shadow and killing Aura view to the south.
 
Best take no chances and make it about five times Aura's width, and push it to 200 stories. That Aura thing needs to be permanently obscured.
 
There's no point trying to block Aura, because in a few years we'll have another gem of a building (YC Condos) to contend with ;).
 
Lenser said:
Where's the third tower in that rendering? Hiding behind one of the two? The other mass is Aura, of course.

Anyway, these don't look bad - pretty nice compared to that early rendering of 50 Bloor West, that slovenly stacked affair resembling a dog's breakfast. But still, these don't seem terribly refined... they casually use the architectural lexicon of the day but it feels a bit slapdash to me.
Click to expand...
We have been careful to state in the front page article, and I think that it has been repeated in this thread too, the the buildings have not been designed yet. Peter Clewes has been clear about that: these are placeholders.

42
 
Lenser said:
Agreed. Rather than three towers, make it two and give 'em additional height. Fat chance it'll go that way, but that's my vote.
Click to expand...

It seems to me that going to two towers (whatever their heights) would in fact alleviate a lot of the DRP's concerns. If they were both at the north end of the site, they would not shadow the proposed park, and there would be significantly more outdoor "public realm" area in general at ground level (i.e. a bigger park and/or wider woonerfs).

So yes, going to two even taller towers should satisfy both the DRP and height enthusiasts.
 
interchange42 said:
We have been careful to state in the front page article, and I think that it has been repeated in this thread too, the the buildings have not been designed yet. Peter Clewes has been clear about that: these are placeholders.

42
Click to expand...
And yet that hasn't stopped the keyboard commando, intelligentsia from giving us their learned opinions in the comments there...
 
Not sure if this was covered already, but the Delta Chelsea originally decided not to participate in the PATH. Can we assume this will link the Atrium to College Park?
 
The City will no doubt ask for a PATH connection to Aura and 385 Yonge/Ryerson, and will likely ask for knockout panels to continue the path southwards, but there will still be a gap between this and the Atrium on Bay.

42
 
interchange42 said:
The City will no doubt ask for a PATH connection to Aura and 385 Yonge/Ryerson, and will likely ask for knockout panels to continue the path southwards, but there will still be a gap between this and the Atrium on Bay.

42
Click to expand...
Which would hopefully be filled in with the World's Biggest Bookstore site.

We just need Delta Chelsea to play ball. I can't imagine the city allowing anything to happen there without a PATH prerequisite.
 
The 20 Edward site doesn't make it all the way to Elm: it's not obvious how that gap would be bridged, er, tunnelled.

In terms of the developers of the 33 Gerrard site playing ball, the City can make support for the proposal contingent on certain public benefits. I'm not saying that everything would hinge on PATH connections, but they would be on the City's wish list.

42
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top