Toronto Cinema Tower | 142.64m | 43s | Daniels | Kirkor Architects

All these new buildings downtown look the same. *sigh*

Toronto's really living up to its drab/boring monicker. If an "Absolute World" was proposed downtown it would probably be rejected.
 
JayBee said:
All these new buildings downtown look the same. *sigh*

Toronto's really living up to its drab/boring monicker. If an "Absolute World" was proposed downtown it would probably be rejected.
Click to expand...

Just in the Entertainment District alone, I think that the following designs should have been approved:

355 King Street West / 119 Blue Jays Way

2612969905_c8a6926195_o.jpg


^ Design rejected

3277495750_b6930439d7.jpg


^ Redesign: report from the City was to have been released Aug 17 of this year.

306 / 310 Richmond Street West

digs19re1big.jpg


^ Design: rejected

Redesign: ???
 
Last edited:
Not baffling: it wasn't the design that was rejected, it was the combination of height and location. The other examples here, I don't know.
 
I recall an Adam Vaughan community meeting way back when about this site, he mentioned the owner of the Corned Beef House building had no intention of selling for sentimental reasons. Seems the owner had a change of heart (I saw a sign on site just before demolition that they're moving east to Adelaide and John).





 
Mongo, Jaybee, Rowe - the projects were not approved based on various planning related issues. The actual architectural designs had little if anything to do with the problems associated with the projects. There was no design review board in place that rejected these proposals and architecture isn't covered within the scope of the Planning Act (therefore the planning department has little room to make comments on architecture). Should you choose to read the planning reports and the rationale behind the concerns of the planning department you would find that the glossy drawings and shapes of those proposals that you like weren't in any way shape or form the reasons why the applications were turned down. Planning and development is a very complex and legislatively cumbersome process - here at UT there is sometimes a fixation on renderings and height rather then the many other critical issues that must be addressed in advancing a project through the land-use approvals process.

Edit: If I recall correctly 306/310 Richmond was recommended for refusal by the Planning Dept, but the local councilor was supportive with certain concessions in sec 37 agreement. The project however did not proceed due to economic viability issues (but Councilor Vaughan still got a club [former Joker / Volume site] knocked down).
 
Last edited:
I'm very happy those cheesy third-rate proposals were turned down! Toronto shouldn't be like the suburbs where vulgar mcmansions with bizarre shapes are found; simple square buildings just simply fit in better with Toronto's aesthetic.

Crazy rain here, but you know I just had to get this hot orange Dodge Charger in the photo! Hoarding totally surrounds the site now, and I'm very happy to see the worst corned beef (Yitz's is actually worse though) in Toronto die! (Well, it's not dead yet...:(

25 August 2010:

dsc02665n.jpg
 
hmm...never experienced that. I used to go to Colemans, which was good as well, up on Bathurst at Lawrence. Now that was a good sandwich, although not Swartz's level.

On another note, I just went with a colleague to assess Daniels home in Rosedale. If only the quality on most scrapers were as good as the quality there. Have to say, they have a pretty sweet green house on the roof. Sorry though, no photos.
 
Last edited:
Also, the Gansevoort wasn't rejected. It failed because the builders were having financial difficulties.

Some people on this forum make sweeping judgements based on half-baked information and a narrow aesthetic (I'll call it "sensational! architecture" for lack of a better term) and then get upset when other people don't follow their strict rules. Be a bit more generous to developers: they are spending the money to build the things you are so harshly criticizing. I'm also always wary of people who only like architecture that is "exciting" because it usually means they only like architecture when it can be a point of pride for them (MY CITY HAS THIS!), rather than say, cause the subtlety of the design generates feelings in you that other buildings do not.

That being said, I think this tower should go through the design review panel. It's no crime against humanity, tho.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top