Toronto Clear Spirit | 131.36m | 40s | Cityscape | a—A

Ed,
Nice pic.

From that angle, Pure Spirit sure dominates the view terminus, and doesn't look bad (I never had a problem so much with the architecture, my problem was the site plan and scale/compatibility with the immediate environs). Though from that angle, I almost get a feeling that it'd be nice if it were more iconic, rather than another glass box.

It also shows the difference big time between the low rise, compact and dense St. Lawrence and the new condos going up to the east (and soon to the south).
 
Variety is the spice of life.

Forty years ago both sites were adjacent parts of an elderly industrial district, but they've been redeveloped during different eras, under different ownership situations and development models. Even before, the Gooderham & Worts site was set somewhat apart from the Esplanade and the train tracks that ran along it.

I strolled through the St.Lawrence Neighbourhod last night on the way to the theatre, past the town homes on leafy Longboat ( the most southerly of the streets, next to the railway embankment ) to the co-op at Parliament and across the road. It's delightful how the neighbourhood has matured since the early 1980's. They hired some of the best local architects of that era - Ron Thom, Irving Grossman, Jerome Markson - and built a mixed-income community of non-profit and co-operative homes that has stood the test of time.

And now, some of our best contemporary architects are working on the Distillery District. The model's different - the public is invited into the Distillery District in a way that was never intended with the strictly residential St.Lawrence Neighbourhood - but one common thread is how excellence of design can contribute to reviving former industrial sites.
 
From above, or at least distantly alongside. Oct 5.

rackhouseM.jpg
 
I've just realized the symbolic meaning of the "prow" on the Pure Spirit podium - aA's homage to the Gooderham Flatiron Building.
 
Some days ago a TO city planner finally clarified to me why this was allowed to go on. The city is not happy with this development; the planner did not find as much beauty (as some seem to) in an above ground garage and a monstrously out of scale point tower that could be anywhere in the city... BUT, the city don't see it as a disaster, but as a reward to CityScape for being an upstanding corporate citizen.

In other words, it's not what the city wants, but it's glad that someone has taken the task of redeveloping the entire complex, and so well, so if that means some point towers, they won't complain.
 
What?

If the city wasn't happy with the plan and final development then why even pass it? Why didn't they send this back to the drawing board for revisions?
 
tkip said:
If the city wasn't happy with the plan and final development then why even pass it? Why didn't they send this back to the drawing board for revisions?
Click to expand...

They didn't like the height. Obviously, taller = more profit, and the city thought CityScape deserved the money.

The developer hasn't had it easy with the Distillery District as a whole, but has, overall, been a good corporate citizen (re: Distillery revitalization); hence, the height reward.
 
That's really strange logic. We don't like the development, but we like the developer, so we'll give them what they want. A precedent that could be open to all sorts of abuse, especially when there's supposed to be a design review board, and the city supposedly wanting to control its own planning versus planning by OMB.
 
salvius said:
Some days ago a TO city planner finally clarified why this was allowed to go on. The city is not happy with this development; the planner did not find as much beauty (as some seem to) in an above ground garage and a monstrously out of scale point tower that could be anywhere in the city... BUT, the city don't see it as a disaster, but as a reward to CityScape for being an upstanding corporate citizen.

In other words, it's not what the city wants, but it's glad that someone has taken the task of redeveloping the entire complex, and so well, so if that means some point towers, they won't complain.
Click to expand...

Hmmm, yes, a "special favour" from the city makes sense. Because even if in the end this development was allowed to go through, I was surprised that it didn't stir up any debate or discussion at City Hall.
 
SeanTrans said:
That's really strange logic. We don't like the development, but we like the developer, so we'll give them what they want. A precedent that could be open to all sorts of abuse, especially when there's supposed to be a design review board, and the city supposedly wanting to control its own planning versus planning by OMB.
Click to expand...

I don't think this is a precedent, but something that goes on with some regularity. Obviously, the city would never admit this; the planner I talked to was not speaking on public record.
 
salvius said:
Some days ago a TO city planner finally clarified why this was allowed to go on. The city is not happy with this development; the planner did not find as much beauty (as some seem to) in an above ground garage and a monstrously out of scale point tower that could be anywhere in the city... BUT, the city don't see it as a disaster, but as a reward to CityScape for being an upstanding corporate citizen.

In other words, it's not what the city wants, but it's glad that someone has taken the task of redeveloping the entire complex, and so well, so if that means some point towers, they won't complain.
Click to expand...

That's disgusting. Complete sellout. I wonder what Miller would have to say about this.
 
salvius said:
it's not what the city wants, but it's glad that someone has taken the task of redeveloping the entire complex, and so well, so if that means some point towers, they won't complain.
Click to expand...

Kinda defeats the purpose of preserving the DD so faithfully when the plan all along was to ruin it with point towers and parking garages. It's kinda like opening a $400 bottle of wine and then using it to marinate a steak.
 
Irishmonk said:
It's kinda like opening a $400 bottle of wine and then using it to marinate a steak.
Click to expand...

At least you would get a pretty damn good steak out of it but Ive always been more partial to salt, pepper and olive oil myself.

I agree with your larger point though...I have no problem with the development of the DD but could it have been for something a little more...something! This tower (i do like the balcony effects) could literally have been placed anywhere and while a giant 50 story whiskey bottle might be out of the question, at least have something we can point to.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top