Toronto One Bedford | ?m | 32s | Lanterra | KPMB

4277786652_184b5ec3f2_b.jpg
 
sweet vantage point mike! (was it taken from Murano?... we've been getting alot of shots from that building these days!. :D) what a view!!! :)

*you're shots make mine look like ----! lol!

This building (like i said) is completely unobstructed and stands out completely from everything in the block! I would die to have view from that building...

Anyone know how many floors till top off?

Nice work!
 
It's close to topping off, perhaps one more floor + mech. and that's it.
 
junctionist said:
First of all, University College is just as significant as our government buildings. It is the symbolic landmark of our most prominent academic institution. Academia carries on the humanist traditions which have developed our core ideals of government. Its buildings deserve utmost respect. Given the built form of Bloor, it just doesn't look like this tower will be joined by a large cluster of towers creating a unified urban background with the likes of the Gooderham House at St. George and Bloor the U of T midrise buildings, and also a park.

This caught me by surprise given the lack of complaints about this, but it has surely inspired the movement to protect the Queen's Park corridor from awkward intrusions. We should also have an inventory of view corridors.
Click to expand...

Sorry to jump in a bit late to the discussion, but it's an interesting one. Junctionist, there is an inventory of view corridors. It was prepared by George Baird and his team for his seminal book On Building Downtown: Design guidelines for the core area. This book was published in 1974, only 36 years ago. In it, maps outlined such axial views as University Avenue, Spadina, Bay, John, Avenue Road, even Frederick and Bond Streets. If memory serves me correctly there was a photo of the Four Seasons (at that point the Hyatt) poking above Queens Park, with the label "Condition to be avoided". How many Official Plans, urban design studies, secondary plans and area studies have we had since then? The only example I can think of the planning department actively enforcing any such view "protection" was in its dealings with One City Hall. The lack of consciousness and consensus on the issue (21 Avenue Rd. notwithstanding) only re-affirms the ambivalency.
 
I'd love to know what type of measures they've taken to isolate the rumbling noise produced by the subway cars from reaching the condo units. I was at the OISE building tonight (just west of One Bedford) and the rumbling sound in the building was quite annoying. You could actually feel vibrations through the floor, along with the noise. The sound was noticeable on the upper floors as well.
 
thecharioteer said:
Sorry to jump in a bit late to the discussion, but it's an interesting one. Junctionist, there is an inventory of view corridors. It was prepared by George Baird and his team for his seminal book On Building Downtown: Design guidelines for the core area. This book was published in 1974, only 36 years ago. In it, maps outlined such axial views as University Avenue, Spadina, Bay, John, Avenue Road, even Frederick and Bond Streets. If memory serves me correctly there was a photo of the Four Seasons (at that point the Hyatt) poking above Queens Park, with the label "Condition to be avoided". How many Official Plans, urban design studies, secondary plans and area studies have we had since then? The only example I can think of the planning department actively enforcing any such view "protection" was in its dealings with One City Hall. The lack of consciousness and consensus on the issue (21 Avenue Rd. notwithstanding) only re-affirms the ambivalency.
Click to expand...

I'll be looking into that book. The view corridors issue is definitely an important one. It's not too late to preserve many important view corridors.

I'd also like to see greater pressure towards developers to create new view terminuses with buildings around the city. I see so many lost opportunities around the city where a street ends or curves at a piece of property that is developed without the architecture addressing the unique place the property has as a view terminus. Often it's not even a matter of cost, just configuring the architectural features in a way that addresses the building's focal on the street.
 
My conclusion about One Bedford, after working north through U of T and up Devonshire yesterday afternoon, is that OISE has to go. This would mitigate the sore thumb syndrome of One Bedford (and hopefully would give a more deserving view terminus to Devonshire). Two sore thumbs are better than one. Also, the parkette next to OISE can go too. Three sore thumbs. Even better. Bye bye Intercontinental. Four sore thumbs. Better still. Problem solved.
 
Last edited:
From this angle, the podium is rather fussy, unapologetic, and seems like it isn't really sure of what it is or what to do next. But for some reason it still works for me from here. I wonder if perhaps they couldn't have continued that somewhat throughout the tower portion of the building in some way.
drum118 said:
IMG_jan-16-10-0074.jpg
]
Click to expand...
 
Now that sleek Clewes point towers with simple podiums and easy pedestrian access ( 18 yorkville, Radio City ... ) are the gold standard, encountering a Vu or a One Bedford - where the statement is less pared-down - is bound to disappoint.
 
Urban Shocker said:
Now that sleek Clewes point towers with simple podiums and easy pedestrian access ( 18 yorkville, Radio City ... ) are the gold standard, encountering a Vu or a One Bedford - where the statement is less pared-down - is bound to disappoint.
Click to expand...

More of the same, tired, rote Clewes-can-do-no-wrong twaddle. And what of Quay West, where your 'defensive compound' argument from the Vu thread is just as visible, if not moreso. Surely this is urban porosity at its finest, but perhaps those who are somewhat bibulous to all that 'The Great Man' puts out might see things differently.
 
Urban Shocker said:
Now that sleek Clewes point towers with simple podiums and easy pedestrian access ( 18 yorkville, Radio City ... ) are the gold standard, encountering a Vu or a One Bedford - where the statement is less pared-down - is bound to disappoint.
Click to expand...

Gold standard? Gold standard in rehashing designs, maybe.

Clewes towers have better pedestrian access than others? This is based on what? There are many non-Clewes developments around the city that are more pedestrian-friendly and do more at the street level.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top