Toronto Nicholas Residences | ?m | 35s | Urban Capital | Core Architects

But again, *is it* so dull, and the original proposal so exquisite, after all? Methinks a lot of you are getting carried away with your inner supertall/intensification-twerp.

Now, if they hired a Jean Nouvel to do a supertall, there'd be a NIMBY-pulverizer. Myself, I find that peanut-shape original scheme twerpy. And I find the grotty Scientology building sexier, kind of like how 70s bush is sexy...
 
adma said:
But again, *is it* so dull, and the original proposal so exquisite, after all? Methinks a lot of you are getting carried away with your inner supertall/intensification-twerp.

Now, if they hired a Jean Nouvel to do a supertall, there'd be a NIMBY-pulverizer. Myself, I find that peanut-shape original scheme twerpy. And I find the grotty Scientology building sexier, kind of like how 70s bush is sexy...
Click to expand...

I don't think the original is all that great, either. I just think that if they are going to criticize this building, it should be based upon its aesthetic merits and its ability to fit into the surrounding fabric, not just its height. Make it eight stories or make it forty, just make it good. And these people could fight for that instead of having a knee-jerk reaction to height.

And I was noticing that the pictures of the Scientology building on their site did make it look surprisingly nice. I'm not sure how that happened.
 
One can't but wonder if those in favour of this project are going to use the same arguments in favour of the proposal for Church & Gloucester.
 
jaborandi said:
One can't but wonder if those in favour of this project are going to use the same arguments in favour of the proposal for Church & Gloucester.
Click to expand...

With respect jaborandi, whether it's mid-rise or high-rise the potential development on Church Street (see post #431) cannot be compared to what is happening on St. Nicholas Street.
 
jaborandi said:
One can't but wonder if those in favour of this project are going to use the same arguments in favour of the proposal for Church & Gloucester.
Click to expand...


ok, i'm confused now.

the NOW article said the SW corner; however, everyone is talking about those old mansions and those are on the NW corner.

are people jumping the gun here, or has everyone completely lost their geographical orientation ???

at the SW corner are Progress Place and the Beer Store ... no big losses.
i would even include everything on the block S to Wellesley would be a welcome addition for re-development.
 
Parkdalian said:
Their website claims they would be okay with a shorter development, and that they think Toronto does need to intensify.
Click to expand...

Yeah, the St.Nicholas NIMBYs would be okay with a shorter development alright ... like something that is accordance with the 'existing' Zoning By-law (as suggested by the statements "more than 5 times current permitted height" and "more than 15 times adjacent cottages") ... LOL ... clearly the NIMBYs has a problem even with the existing 25 storey tower at the southwest corner of St. Nicholas + St. Mary :rolleyes:

btw... what adjacent cottages ? those are just older townhouses that you typically see built throughout the City ~
 
City Planning Final Report

Woohoo ~ great news to hear !! St. Nicholas NIMBYs are gonna love this !! :D

I must say though ... the original peanut shaped building was certainly more interesting ... look at the 2 renderings below ~
********

To be considered by Toronto & East York Community Council on October 13, 2009:

http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2009/te/bgrd/backgroundfile-23833.pdf

This application proposes a 29-storey residential building at 15 St. Mary Street and 65-67 St. Nicholas Street, including two-story townhouse units and retail uses at grade. The development parcel also includes the rear portion of 692 Yonge Street. The proposal meets the intent of the City’s Official Plan for intensification in Mixed Use Areas and reflects the principles expressed in the City’s Design Criteria for the Review of Tall Buildings Proposals.

This report reviews and recommends approval of the application to amend the Zoning By-law.

Renderings
67StNicholas-6.jpg

67StNicholas-7.jpg


Site Plan
67StNicholas-1.jpg


Elevations
67StNicholas-2.jpg
67StNicholas-3.jpg
67StNicholas-4.jpg
67StNicholas-5.jpg
 
the peanut building would have been so much more interesting, but probably not feasable at the height reduction to 29s, so a rectangle we get.
 
Thanks for posting that Solaris.

It's really unfortunate that the peanut didn't get built. What a beauty. It would have been Casa's new curvy spouse.

A few details I found interesting:

  • The three-story (not listed as heritage) building is being taken apart and rebuilt 1.75m north to widen the lane on the southside of the proposal (cost: $600,000).
  • The proposal provides for a mix of 80 bachelor units, 136 one-bedroom units and 28 two bedroom units.
  • Lots of bike parking.
  • It's good all the garbage and parking action is moved to St. Mary's. That makes a lot of sense.

Would cladding the mechanical box at the top in brick look funny? It seems whatever is there in the rendering looks like a total lazy afterthought.
 
Thanks for hilighting those points for us :). All important details!

I think cladding the top in brick would create a "heavy" look for the mechanical box and would make its height be much more noticeable perhaps.

But it would be nice to do something with it. Glass would always be a good choice for cladding the mechanical box.
 
greenleaf said:
Would cladding the mechanical box at the top in brick look funny? It seems whatever is there in the rendering looks like a total lazy afterthought.
Click to expand...

Let's hear it for aluminum cladding, no doubt!

Regarding the design, I'm guessing that switching to a rectangle for the shorter height is to maximize the saleable area in a shorter building, however it's a shame that they couldn't keep the shape while lopping off a few floors. I hope the NIMBYs responsible feel like idiots; there's still a building going up beside them and it's a less interesting looking neighbour to boot.
 
For the location in question, I do find the peanut proposal a little too slickly overbearing and narcissistic.

Oh, and re

btw... what adjacent cottages ? those are just older townhouses that you typically see built throughout the City ~
Click to expand...

...look at them carefully; notice each townhouse has a name in the gable: "Oak Cottage", "Beech Cottage", et al...

The townhomes up against that big blank wall look horrible. Damn you nimbys!!
Click to expand...

Said "big blank wall" is pre-existing.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top