Toronto Panda Condominiums | 107.59m | 30s | Lifetime | Turner Fleischer

Comparing that elevation drawing to a 70s slab at this point—especially one that ridiculously long—is beyond premature.

42
 
What’s wrong with a long building? I wish there were more of these lately; I’m so sick of the tiny-tower-sprouting-out-of-a-fat-podium style that’s so popular. Plus, it creates a solid street wall and great density.

Ideally the same street wall would consist of multiple buildings all pressed up against each other, but the old way of building seems impossible now for some reason.
 
A long thick slab can be broken up architecturally into themes in order to prevent monotony and create a strong street wall, such as what is being done on Gladstone.
 
It would be similar in length to this however:

J8uHZbh.jpg


Why is this bad? Seriously? have any of you looked at any planning documents to come from the city in the last decade? City planning is going to take this one and shoot it out with a resounding "recommended refusal". Split it into 2 towers, a good portion of the proposed building is only around 5 meters wide anyway and can't support anything but a hallway. Cut the hallway and install an elevator shaft and the proposal instantly becomes far more appealing.

There is no reason buildings like this should still be getting proposed today.
 
I can post photos of plenty of depressing 1970s point towers. The city is hardly that obsessed with point towers. A number of slab buildings have been proposed and built in the city. Look at Aura which originally was planned as two point towers. The one that fits the bill the best is Ultima in NYCC which is 36 floors and 760 units.

think you may have missed a few planning documents over the years
 
agoraflaneur said:
A long thick slab can be broken up architecturally into themes in order to prevent monotony and create a strong street wall, such as what is being done on Gladstone.
Click to expand...

It can be and done really well. There are also examples where the developer may have been better off with a simpler design like what is being proposed here
 
innsertnamehere said:
It would be similar in length to this however:

Why is this bad? Seriously? have any of you looked at any planning documents to come from the city in the last decade? City planning is going to take this one and shoot it out with a resounding "recommended refusal". Split it into 2 towers, a good portion of the proposed building is only around 5 meters wide anyway and can't support anything but a hallway. Cut the hallway and install an elevator shaft and the proposal instantly becomes far more appealing.

There is no reason buildings like this should still be getting proposed today.
Click to expand...

You haven't answered your own query. You haven't presented any evidence and have simply stated that you think this is 'bad' because planning has said it's 'bad.' I work with the 'documents' you cite every day but that doesn't mean I believe they are infallible or that there aren't multiple ways to build a city. For example, I take issue with much of the content in the 'Tall Building Guidelines' and believe that while they often present a good starting point, strict adherence to everything they set forth would create a bland and monotonous environment. This is also why they are 'guidelines' and not 'law.' My city is one that celebrates diversity of form and constitution and therefore welcomes buildings of all shapes and sizes, not just those that the authors of a single study, at a single point in time felt were 'best.'

And if planning wants to "shoot it out with a resounding recommended refusal," any developer worth their salt will simply take it up with a higher body. If you want to win at the OMB, you have to prove your assertions in law. Something that, in the absence of concrete evidence, the city can't often do.
 
Last edited:
In context I don't mind the slabbiness of this one. It's facing right into the Atrium, so it's not as a major change for the area. As long as the street level has some kind of fine grain detail to it it's fine.
 
These wide rectangular 1960's/1970's apartment buildings create devastating wind tunnels, perhaps podiums might help, which most of them are absent of.
Interesting note about the Sick Kids helicopter flight path, which answers the question of height here on Edward Street.
 
A new vantage point, taken from the 8th floor of the new Student Centre.

Screen Shot 2015-02-23 at 11.51.09 AM.png


Screen Shot 2015-02-23 at 11.51.20 AM.png
 

Attachments

  • Screen Shot 2015-02-23 at 11.51.09 AM.png
    Screen Shot 2015-02-23 at 11.51.09 AM.png
    847.9 KB · Views: 2,043
  • Screen Shot 2015-02-23 at 11.51.20 AM.png
    Screen Shot 2015-02-23 at 11.51.20 AM.png
    938.3 KB · Views: 1,998
Damn that's a big piece of land, and a shame we're going to see another bloody condo, would have been nice to go by the original plans for an eatery. With all those huge condos going up all around there, it would have been a practical solution for the area. I'm a huge fan of skyscrapers, but frankly, I'm getting tired of nothing but condo after condo (although there are several new ones, that aren't glass and steel box clones, that I'm really looking forward to seeing) with no supporting infrastructure for area residents to go. I know many of the newer condos are doing just that at their bases, but considering just how many more people will soon be living in the core, the more stores, especially for food, the better, just sayin', cheers all :cool:
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top