Red Mars
Senior Member
Pics taken Nov 29, 2018
Toronto Concord Canada House | 231.97m | 74s | Concord Adex | Arcadis
- Thread starter yyzer
- Start date
Redroom Studios
Senior Member
I havent been paying very close attention here the last few years but what happened to the Design Review Panel? they intervened in many projects and demanded architectural changes... 88 Scott is one that comes to mind.
The DRP can only suggest, not demand (although their remarks are given serious consideration normally, and usually result in changes), and their concerns typically are for the smooth functioning of the building, and have less to do with the expression.
In regard to @kweku's post that I was answering, he was saying essentially that "the City should have demanded more". Well, more in what way? The City has no mechanism to force a developer to spend more on the exterior skin of a building, as long as the materials meet code.
42
In regard to @kweku's post that I was answering, he was saying essentially that "the City should have demanded more". Well, more in what way? The City has no mechanism to force a developer to spend more on the exterior skin of a building, as long as the materials meet code.
42
old boy
Senior Member
Perhaps not force, but perhaps the City could encourage interesting and appealing design through some kind of bonusing, for example a few more levels that might also break up the tabletop limits. At this point any progressive ideas towards a mechanism that make the cityscape more attractive would be welcome.
Where the City has allowed a building to go beyond a set limit for some reason — at Festival Tower, they gave extra height and density so that the Lightbox could be built affordably, the OMB declared that any building in that area could be that height — that brought about the table top in the first place. It's a very tricky situation. The Mirvish+Gehry Towers are now being cited as a reason to go higher east of John than 157 metres. Since Mirvish+Gehry were approved, however, the City has brought in the Tall Buildings Guidelines, and the OMB has been happening enough with them, and the guidelines have been used to keep nearby buildings (on smaller sites) shorter than M+G.
42
bmiller
Active Member
It appears sameness and bland design is catching on.
https://www.curbed.com/2018/12/4/18125536/real-estate-modern-apartment-architecture
https://www.curbed.com/2018/12/4/18125536/real-estate-modern-apartment-architecture
Red Mars
Senior Member
Pics taken Mar 8, 2019
cd concept
Senior Member
Love the photos but I haven't seen a birds eye view of the property from the sky, that would be great !
isaidso
Senior Member
My god that part of town is ugly. Not one single attractive building anywhere. On the bright side, these buildings will be re-developed eventually..... 2070?
cd concept
Senior Member
speed kills doesn't it ! There's not much Lovin when it goes to putting up most of these highrises in Toronto nowadays . Why does the future architecture in skyscrapers have to look so cheap!
junctionist
Senior Member
isaidso
Senior Member
That side of 150 Leckie Way is fine. I'll try to fixate on it next time I have the misfortune of being near there.
isaidso
Senior Member
Regarding the low standard of architecture in our city, the quality of glass effects the result to a large degree. Can't the City pass regulations to up the minimum standard (building code) permitted? I imagine the ugly stuff is chosen because it's cheaper. If the minimum standard is increased to the point that developers have no choice but to choose more expensive product we'll have a higher chance of getting a more attractive product at the same time. Nicer things often cost more money but perhaps this is one area where we should demand something nicer.
Is there a flaw in this rationale and does the City have the interest and initiative to effect change in this way?
Is there a flaw in this rationale and does the City have the interest and initiative to effect change in this way?
Last edited by a moderator:
cd concept
Senior Member
Yeah the way I see it owning a condo is a big rip-off nowadays. They're getting more expensive and looking more cheaper. At least the Housing Industry has gotten better the last some odd years in my opinion. The facades of the homes look more detailed with brick, stone and plastered materials Etc, creating that Victorian look. It would be nice if they put some of that Lovin into those highrise condos that way.
isaidso
Senior Member
I suspect the City doesn't have the interest, determination, or courage to demand such things. They're too cozy with the development industry and more interested in seeking common ground than enforcing regulations that are in the best interest of consumers/Toronto. The tail is wagging the dog, so to speak.
It's not as if the development industry will balk and head to a different city. Demand will stay the same and there's lots of money at stake. If the City put its foot down the development industry will have no choice but to abide. If they don't want to play ball someone else will.
It's not as if the development industry will balk and head to a different city. Demand will stay the same and there's lots of money at stake. If the City put its foot down the development industry will have no choice but to abide. If they don't want to play ball someone else will.