Toronto Ellie Condos | 105.76m | 31s | G Group | Kirkor Architects

Blame the Engrish article...lost in translation. There's some very specific facts in there, though, including that the site reaches until Ferg's, a bar that Korean people are presumably familiar with...Ferg's is at the SW corner of Ellerslie and Yonge.

The best passage is this one: "To lower part 2nd floor of the condominium building the mourner's house moves in. The mourner's house the various enterprise and the moving in discussion are in the process of advancing and still the contract not being completed. The building size approximately thus being decided because the capacity rate which is provided in hour regulations is within about 5 times of the plottage is."

Now, 'plottage' here seems to be used in lieu of floor area ratio, as a cool portmonteau of plot and square footage, but what's more interesting is that, apparently, a funeral home (aka mourner's house) will be operating on the second floor of the condo! Is it part of the amenities? :)
 
funny! ya I wondered about that reference to a funeral home too. If they hadnt mentioned moving in to the second floor I might have guessed that part of the land they intended to build on was occupied by a funeral home currently. I dont know the area so that was purely a guess...
 
The site is currently occupied by a bar, a Vietnamese restuarant, a picture store, a youth shelter, a Color Your World, an Indian restuarant, and a boarded up Speedy Muffler.

If a retirement home was proposed, then, perhaps, a funeral home (mourner's house) would make an occasionally useful amenity...but knowing the Engrish it's based on it could be something boring like a yoga studio, or maybe they're just talking about the youth shelter, which has built a new building on Canterbury but hasn't moved yet.
 
scarberiankhatru said:
As of April, this was a Kirkor project, not Young & Wright...I wasn't kidding what I asked if everyone was excited about this being a Kirkor project!
Click to expand...
scarberian
I find it interesting that the majority of threads you reply to are either concerning transit/subway systems or trashing Kirkor.

Perhaps you worked there at one point.
 
Roark8 said:
scarberian
I find it interesting that the majority of threads you reply to are either concerning transit/subway systems or trashing Kirkor.

Perhaps you worked there at one point.
Click to expand...

You obviously work for Kirkor and something's irking you (though if you spent more time designing maybe we'd have less reason to make jokes at Kirkor's expense), so you should be aware that I've made maybe 8 posts about Kirkor in the last 5 years or so and almost all of them are in this thread - and if you look at my previous post in this thread, you'll notice that I'm a bit familiar with the site in question, so my interest here has nothing to do with Kirkor.

Why not search through my post archive deeper than one page, where you'll find a variety of posts on an abundance of topics, none of which have anything to do with Kirkor's truly astounding portfolio...you'll laugh, you'll cry, you'll learn.
 
I do work in the development industry, which prompts me to review certain buildings and sites.

I occasionally look beyond the "insight" that some posters seem to offer, which in your case is simply an attack on a firm of architects that appear sometimes to be at the whim of developers, or the sites that they work on. They've done some dross, as many of this forum would agree, but also some others that are not too bad. Every firm appears to have their own bugs.

But, I read the report from the DRP and didn't think it was "mildly thrashed" - I've seen far worse critical statements from that group and they also sent this forward to approve with minor revisions. I would think Sol, David P and group would have asked for a complete re-design if they followed your thoughts.

Yes, I did look at other posts you put up.
 
Roark8 said:
I do work in the development industry, which prompts me to review certain buildings and sites.

I occasionally look beyond the "insight" that some posters seem to offer, which in your case is simply an attack on a firm of architects that appear sometimes to be at the whim of developers, or the sites that they work on. They've done some dross, as many of this forum would agree, but also some others that are not too bad. Every firm appears to have their own bugs.

But, I read the report from the DRP and didn't think it was "mildly thrashed" - I've seen far worse critical statements from that group and they also sent this forward to approve with minor revisions. I would think Sol, David P and group would have asked for a complete re-design if they followed your thoughts.

Yes, I did look at other posts you put up.
Click to expand...

No, you clearly didn't look at others...you don't seem to have even read the rest of my posts in this thread, or you'll note that your "insight" consists mostly of comments that I just made. Kirkor has been the butt of jokes on the forum for many years...before this thread, I made exactly one of them.

Also, look up mildly in the dictionary. Also also, remember that the design review panel is just a bunch of people, with their own tastes and biases - everything is liked by somebody. The planning elements like the massing are the main problems with Centrium (though, as I said, the podium is kinda vile), but that doesn't excuse Kirkor - their name is on it and it's not like they contributed nothing to the project other than the colour of the cladding.

I've said more positive things about Kirkor projects than probably anyone else on this forum over the years (well, except Solaris), but after this bizarre series of posts, perhaps I'll not continue doing so.
 
Also, also...also ??
The Design Review Panel is just people !!

The last time I looked, they are representatives of the profession in this city, with I dare to suggest a few more years experience than you in commenting
about "vile" elements of a building.
 
Roark8 said:
Also, also...also ??
The Design Review Panel is just people !!

The last time I looked, they are representatives of the profession in this city, with I dare to suggest a few more years experience than you in commenting
about "vile" elements of a building.
Click to expand...

I'll defer to them if the review process actually helps turn Centrium into something less awkward...it's not quite there yet. It certainly doesn't take a professional to see that the podium is a hot mess, exactly what is not needed along a retail streetscape that deserves as much rationalization as it can get, but did you really expect to see the word vile in a city report?

I'm not sure what your specific stake in Centrium is, but if you'd only expend more effort improving the site plan and aesthetics of the project and less time engaging in pointless debates on the internet, the project will be better off. And if you are going to continue this bizarre series of posts (do, they're amusing!), why not read the posts you're responding to?
 
I don't think the podium is all that bad. A nice mix of glass and terra cotta (we can wish...) could really liven things up at street level. Unfortunately, it's most likely going to be a mix of mullions and precast that we will be forced to digest. Sigh, Toronto...
 
Centrium.jpg


I think the current Centrium design is not 'the worst' it could be (we've seen worst), but Kirkor can definitely improve the design (like Waterclub ! :)) ... as it stands now the podium feels more appropriate as an institutional use (community centre, nursing home) or was that intended ?? adding some architectural elements (awning / broken up sections of storefront windows) along the grade retail facade may help to add life at the street level

with respect to the tower section above, again its nothing exciting being a box containing perhaps more cladding (rather than the typical glass+steel box) ... but as the great man Cliff Korman would describe it himself, this would be a Solid Citizen Building ... much like anything else he's done in Markham / Thornhill :rolleyes:

ps ... btw from my count in the above rendering ... the two towers should be 27 storeys (w/ 3s podium) and 14 storeys (w/ 4s podium) respectively
 
Hopefully a community center or some similar institution (not likely as there is one right behind city hall about two blocks south) could find a home here. Though retail would definitely be better than private, residents' only space, it often lacks the vibrancy and animation that a community/socially-focused space can provide. Furthermore, the size of Yonge up here really makes it difficult for smaller, more 'independent' retailers to set up shop allowing larger, corporate stores (a la Shoppers, Hakim, etc.) to dominate the streetscape as they now do.
 
That's not necessarily true about the retail. Most of the older buildings like the ones across the street are mom and pop types. Same goes for the smaller new units like those north of Church.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top