Toronto The Metropolitan | 113.99m | 37s | Lancer Developments

I forgot about that one you did, really good for something you don’t like. We all realize that whatever they do construct on that spot will be vastly different from the plans that surfaced a few years previously but lets at least expect to get some high density with a healthy retail. A 24 hr streetscape is what this district desperately needs to pull it out of the decayed wasteland it is now. I appreciate projects to the North and South have enhanced the area somewhat, but a large scale development is just what this sector of the core needs. As far as the design goes I don’t mind it, but a bit more dissimilarity would do a lot to help with the transition from the core to the more architecturally diverse and eclectic mid to lo-rise area to the East.
 
Anybody remember the original goth 2 tower design, posted on skypage way back when?

MUC.jpg
 
Oh I remember those... they were fun to dream about. A sort of gothic revival in TO.
 
I don't know if "dissimilarity" vs "non-dissimilarity", retro vs modern would make it any more appetizing to those who've fundamental concerns with the scheme.

Remember re Spire, that the original plan was to build upon the St. James Parish House site--and with George Baird involved, which presumably would have meant anything but retro/faux. And the controversy over that had little to do with style, it was with the wisdom of building anything at all of that scale upon that site--or if style *did* relate, it was in terms of "quality design" being used as a cynical Trojan-horse ploy on behalf of questionable planning. Likewise, if Spire were situated upon the St. James site rather than kitty-corner, that wouldn't make it any more "acceptable" to its critics--and not merely the "Stig Harvor" NIMBY lunatic fringe--than if it were retro-Gothic-Deco.

Just a general warning.
 
^ Yes, mostly. The nasty, graceless faux-faux Goth is insult to injury, but the real sin isn't in there, *or* merely in putting a big tower on the same site.

It's in the fact that this plan put the new tower directly and symmetrically behind the cathederal, as if it were adding a second tower at the back, one riddled with elephantiasis. It becomes - visually if not physically (but perhaps both?) - not only the same building, but an attempt to extend the original design. And, of course, in so doing, it ruins the whole thing.

It could be done differently, on the same site. It could be off-centre. It could be a point tower rather than a slab, so as not to straddle the cathedral and ruin its proportions. More to the point, it could stand on its own two feet as a design and add something to the city, rather than looming in the background like a giant, thuggish little brother.
 
I prefer the idea of a symmetrically placed tower that invites comparison, rather than one that skulks, ashamedly, off to one side and hopes it isn't noticed. Comparisons will be made, so why not invite them?

But it can only work well, surely, if the tower is either a boldly contemporary take on Gothic - like the Philip Johnson tower I mentioned earlier, or a contemporary design-opposite of the Clewes/KPMB Modernist Restoration ilk.

You create visual harmony either by adopting the style that already exists, or by creating a complementary contrast. "Nasty, graceless" faux copyism is neither of the above.
 
It'll only be perfectly lined up behind the church is you're standing exactly perpendicular to it on Queen...from any other angle it's not that big a deal.
 
First version.
MUC(1).jpg


MUC(2).jpg


Alternate Queen Street version. Doubt this one would fly.
MUCalt(1).jpg


MUCalt(2).jpg
 
UNCLE.

That is the first post I haven't seen before (which basically means yer old like me and much more patient...before you reach back in the vault and pull this kinda thang (sp) out.

Bravo.
 
When you think that Pinnacle and RoCP received initial approval in the 90's, well, anything can happen. I'm still waiting for hoarding at the World Trade Centre at Harbourfront to go up.
 
I vaguely remember this. Is this the condo that looks neo-gothic?
 
From the doc:

The applicant is seeking the consent of the Committee of Adjustment to sever the exisiting lot into three new
lots in order to construct a new 37-storey mixed-use residential building with commercial uses at grade and five
levels of underground parking. Part 3, as shown on the Draft R-Plan, is to be retained by the Metropolitan
United Church for the continued use of the existing building as a place of worship. Part 1, as shown on the Draft
R-Plan, is to be conveyed to a separate company under the ownership of the Metropolitan United Church and
leased to the builder to construct the above-grade portion of the mixed-use building and acccessory parking
garage below grade. The below-grade portion of Part 2, as shown on the Draft R-Plan, is to be conveyed to
another separate company also under the ownership of the Metropolitan United Church and leased to the builder
to construct a five-level underground garage to be used as public parking. The above-grade portion of Part 2 is
to be retained by the Metropolitan United Church. Also proposed with this application are various easements
and rights-of-way above and below grade for pedestrian, vehicular and construction access, among other things.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top