Toronto One Bloor East | 257.24m | 76s | Great Gulf | Hariri Pontarini

Perhaps true and by pure logic then 65s is even less a realization of potential. Whats the point in arguing zoning / usage at this point? Critiquing the design makes sense because there is atleast some chance that it may be changed / refined.
Click to expand...

Actually it doesn't make any sense to critique the design - particularly height. What tools does the city have in its' possession to force the developer to build taller, for example? The developer already has the right to build taller but chose not to - critique of any kind won't change that reality.

Clearly the demand for condos is high, while we would likely have to wait 10-20 years for demand for office space to equate to a new tower here and even then it likely wouldnt be more than 30 storey.
Click to expand...

For all this talk about grandeur, iconic status of the intersection, etc...you certainly wave the white flag and settle for the second best when the more substantive issues are raised. Personally, I would be quite content to see the site used for some more interim uses and leave future options open instead of settling for a project that is more or less permanent with architecture of average to questionable quality.

AoD
 
Last edited:
AlvinofDiaspar said:
Personally, I would be quite content to see the site used for some more interim uses and leave future options open instead of settling for a project that is more or less permanent with architecture of average to questionable quality.
Click to expand...
AoD, are you unimpressed with the architecture of #1B or are you speaking in generalities?
 
cassius:

Both, but to be honest I don't really care that much about the different scenarios coming into fruition - i.e. the final Bazis proposal vs. GG (though I am much more confident in the ability of GG to deliver the goods). To me, an office tower or significant mixed use (office and residential/hotel) project is a far better use of the site than either of the two essentially condominium projects, but at this point I am more concerned about the details such as street level integration, materiality, connection to the TTC, retail design than continuing a pointless debate of the merits of 65 vs 80s and how one is more monumental than the other, and by extension, that our lack of an 80s building at the site speaks of our lack of virility, etc.

Seriously, if one truly wants to debate architecture, monumentality, node significance, etc - they should be talking about the policy environment within which the city operates, and the roles of various interests in shaping policies.

AoD
 
Last edited:
alklay said:
So this building is 65 stories and there are people complaining that its not high enough? And they bring out the old arguments about 'density' and 'transit nodes'?

The Yonge and Bloor subway station is plenty crowded as it is. And 5 more stories is not going to mean anything in the larger density of the city. You need better arguments or you just come off as a geek with nothing better to get worked up about.

;)
Click to expand...
How much density gets built downtown shouldn't be dictated by how crowded nearby subway stations are. When there's enough density to overcrowd subway lines, the solution is to build more lines. Toronto, other than in the financial district, isn't as dense as many cities around the world.
 
AoD, understood. While I'd love to see this go up to 80s I see no point in debating it mostly because it's just not going to happen according to what GG has planned. I do think that the architecture of the tower portion is of importance given that most people will be seeing it from a distance. How it impacts things at streetlevel is of course also a major concern but I think that should go without saying... though perhaps not considering the number of height proponents that don't seem to care.

I have great confidence in GG's ability to do a good job here, architecturally (we haven't seen the full building renderings yet), materials and ground-level uses. The Morgan and Hudson are some of my favourite projects in the past decade. While the little grocery store (Fresh is it?) in Hudson doesn't really work for me the way that it "flows" on the inside, I have a feeling that was the fault of Fresh and not GG. All the other retail in those two buildings, while not necessarily exciting, do fit in well. The architecture of the Morgan had an instantly classic feel and Hudson was the first building that really sold the idea of glass, steel and light-coloured brick all working together in a modern way for me. So I'm definitely looking forward to seeing a final product from GG.

About your point of the location being better for office tower(s), absolutely. Two subway lines right there - it's a no-brainer in my opinion. For right now though, given that we have a limited demand for office space, what does get built should probably continue to be near Union Station because of it's regional accessbility. I'm not sure I'd necessarily like to see particular shaping policies put into place if it were to mean the lot sits empty for a decade or two.
 
AlvinofDiaspar said:
Personally, I would be quite content to see the site used for some more interim uses and leave future options open instead of settling for a project that is more or less permanent with architecture of average to questionable quality.

AoD
Click to expand...

I quite agree - lets take our time before something totally inadequate gets built and elimunates the possibility of something grand.
 
Do you read more than just half a sentence? Cassius gave examples to base that on with the Morgan and Hudson. Then there are also St. James, 18 Yorkville and X. All of these are quality buildings in terms of archtectural design, materials and relationship with the street. These are all elements that are a lot more important within the urban realm than anything above 30 storeys.
 
Thanks, marcus_a_j. Good to know that someone is paying attention.
Big Daddy said:
What do you base that on??
Click to expand...
Let me give this another try.
cassius said:
I have great confidence in GG's ability to do a good job here, architecturally (we haven't seen the full building renderings yet), materials and ground-level uses. The Morgan and Hudson are some of my favourite projects in the past decade. While the little grocery store (Fresh is it?) in Hudson doesn't really work for me the way that it "flows" on the inside, I have a feeling that was the fault of Fresh and not GG. All the other retail in those two buildings, while not necessarily exciting, do fit in well. The architecture of the Morgan had an instantly classic feel and Hudson was the first building that really sold the idea of glass, steel and light-coloured brick all working together in a modern way for me. So I'm definitely looking forward to seeing a final product from GG.
Click to expand...
 
"Something grand", architectural excellence, good density,iconic, etc. does not necessarily equal buildings above 65 stories? So why argue for such (over and over and over again)?
 
I would like confirmation from the construction experts out there...but I heard that the cost p s f of construction rises sharply after a certain height threshold, and that quite possibly Bazis had realized this via quotes from contractors after they had pre sold at a certain price. Might explain the capping off point at 65? Anyway, we all pretty much have only seen snippets of the design, so hopefully some detail of the podium will allay our concerns. Would love to see a site plan, because I would have thought that two towers could have fit on that site???
 
A few photos of the sales office today, front and back

Click on the thumbnail to enlarge, then click again on the image for full size.

 
And from above:

IMG_5410.jpg


IMG_5411.jpg
 
big daddy said:
on the other hand, i have never understood the argument that a building in downtown toronto is too tall. Something has to give. First they despair that urban sprawl will kill us, so they place a “green barrier around the city and preach intensification - then they say buildings are too tall (by some unknown "human scale") and intensification must be scaled back – no clear reasons are ever provided except increased traffic (need to improve / increase mass transit) and blocked sunlight. Our cities are the engine that drives our economy. If you insist that you can’t grow out and you can’t grow up then grow where? Or is the argument that the city should stop growing? Or is the argument that all buildings should be capped at some arbitrary height? There are few sites as clearly perfect for intensification as \yonge and \bloor due to the fact that it is serviced by two subway lines. In fact many of our downtown sites can and should have less restrictions on height. The infrastructure is there to accommodate as is the transit and the ability for many to walk to work.




You must either mean subterranean or even tinier apartments. I think the apartments are already too small and lack any form of "human scale". Sunlight isn’t all we need; we also need space to adequately live - including families.
Click to expand...

very well put!!!
 
I have little doubt that this building will not have a street podium, because there is growing rumor that the developer want to turn outside the building a small public square with water feature outside the main entrance of the building, if this is a true, for those who were campaigning the site should be turned into a public square have something little to celebrate.Becuase when you carefully looked the architect design of this building they are hiding something.The only thing that you could see from rendering is the towers itself with no prove of detail about the base of the building so let us see when they start selling.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top