Toronto Pinnacle Etobicoke | 137.76m | 43s | Pinnacle | Turner Fleischer

The real problem with this proposal, is that the whole thing is flawed and backwards. Basically everything about it is just wrong.

The parkland should most definitely not be fronting Dundas, there is no retail presence whatsoever, the podiums of each tower seem like almost an afterthought, and the massing leaves much to be desired. As is, this thing is so screwed up it would basically be even more of a disservice to what's currently in existence.
 
maestro said:
Yawn. Could it be anymore cookie cutter? The east side and west side mirror one another ... awesome!

A case could be made that the park has too much frontage and that it probably will be to the standard of a forecourt for the condo development. I still don't understand the rationale of putting the park at the lower quality rear of the property hidden away from the main street. Public space (assuming the park is publicly owned) should be valued more than private space. There's no evidence corporate retail is more vibrant than quality, community parks. Trinity Bellwoods or Kew Gardens interrupt continuous retail strips on Queen Street and it's not the end of the world. This stuff drives me crazy but, I'm going to be hypocritical anyways. It's such a Toronto thing that a park supplanting the potential of street retail is seen with such disappointment.
Click to expand...
It is the execution of the park that is troubling.

It is going to be tucked in between a wide ROW on Dundas and a private road servicing the condo project.

This stretch will feel like the ROW from the north side of Dundas all the way to the condo will be literally 100 metres.

Dundas West ROW = 36m
Public Park = 45m
ROW between Public Park and Pinnicle Etobicoke Building = 19m

36 + 45 + 19 = 100m
 
maestro said:
Yawn. Could it be anymore cookie cutter? The east side and west side mirror one another ... awesome!

A case could be made that the park has too much frontage and that it probably will be to the standard of a forecourt for the condo development. I still don't understand the rationale of putting the park at the lower quality rear of the property hidden away from the main street. Public space (assuming the park is publicly owned) should be valued more than private space. There's no evidence corporate retail is more vibrant than quality, community parks. Trinity Bellwoods or Kew Gardens interrupt continuous retail strips on Queen Street and it's not the end of the world. This stuff drives me crazy but, I'm going to be hypocritical anyways. It's such a Toronto thing that a park supplanting the potential of street retail is seen with such disappointment.
Click to expand...

Both Trinity Bellwoods and KEW have smaller frontages than their total width. Whether they're public or private, open spaces tends to to deaden a street if they're not well-used. Enclosed spaces feel more comfortable and secure, especially if they are open to the public.
 
Additional materials uploaded in support of Site Plan application for phase 2:

Screen Shot 2019-01-17 at 9.53.13 AM.png
Screen Shot 2019-01-17 at 9.52.37 AM.png
Screen Shot 2019-01-17 at 9.54.12 AM.png
Screen Shot 2019-01-17 at 9.53.52 AM.png
Screen Shot 2019-01-17 at 9.54.03 AM.png
 
It isn't like there are residents to offend across the street on Dundas (or on Shorncliffe for that matter)

Swap the parks with the middle three towers facing the rail corridor, create a continuous streetfront along Dundas, and shift their height and density from Dundas onto the Shorncliffe side.
 
Hopefully they rip this one to shreds just like they did with both the Six Points and Etobicoke City Centre plans. Better yet, hopefully it gets ripped apart and is able to (hopefully) have the necessary significant adjustments made before our pathetic provincial government reinstates the OMB.
 
Amare said:
Hopefully they rip this one to shreds just like they did with both the Six Points and Etobicoke City Centre plans. Better yet, hopefully it gets ripped apart and is able to (hopefully) have the necessary significant adjustments made before our pathetic provincial government reinstates the OMB.
Click to expand...
Hmm? after back and forth for over 8 years hopefully not
 
The big question here is what will the new version look like, as the City rejected the last version. This could just be a shorter version of what we last saw, or it could be radically different. I know what I vote for, but I suspect that Pinnacle sees this as an area to build inexpensively, and unimaginatively.

42
 
Automation Gallery said:
Hmm? after back and forth for over 8 years hopefully not
Click to expand...
I wouldnt mind if this dragged on for 20 years to get a better result at the end of the day, because we already know what we're going to get if this is built today in its current form. As currently proposed, this is just a ridiculous tower in a park proposal for a very busy major arterial road and "city center".

It's amazing because Pinnacle's current proposal in Scarborough is 20X better than the garbage they are proposing here. It's almost as if they got the 2 sites mixed up.
 
You can get a higher PSF downtown which allows you to hire a better architect. That said, don't think that Pinnacle isn't pushing every architect in their employ to cheapen and squeeze every efficiency out of the things they do, regardless of where it is in the city.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top