Toronto Pinnacle One Yonge | 345.5m | 105s | Pinnacle | Hariri Pontarini

[cc46]

I've had a chance to review the dwgs submitted.
My reactions
--design is maturing
--like the street treatment
--like the expanded sidewalk at the Toronto Star SW corner
--like the CRU space, this area needs it, hopefully the tenants project successful businesses, wow 300k+ SF, cha ching that's a money maker
--like the community centre, bit surprised with this one but given the population that will be in this area it will make sense. Dare I ask? is a school considered? Like in at Lawrence Market?
--like the idea of 10% affordable units, could be a bit more. Promotes a wider range of ages.
--disappointed at the lack of grade level walk through, the space is given up for pesty surface truck docks etc, but hey, we need deliveries, so it's a necessary evil
--like the street grid
--not sure I understand the PATH connection, but work it in!
--towers don't really impress me, although at this point it's about the combination of spacing and massing and size, but gosh seriously is 95 storeys possible? Anyway, skinny is good for shadows etc.
--didn't really look to much at the Toronto Star tower but like the mix of office at QQ. People need a place to work too.
--It's a mini city nearly, but I think is representative of the area and will work well on a lot of levels. I'd like to see provisions in the CRU to be a school in the future and I'd like to see more 3 bedrooms so that the current 20 and 30 somethings stay in the area when child 1 and then child 2 arrive.

All in great progress. I'll stay tuned.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

They haven't finished yet, give them a chance, they'll cut it eventually.

You mean like 160 Front?

AoD

 

[ADRM]

I really will never understand the preoccupation with height and the associated dissatisfaction with planning-directed height chopping. Every—every—height milestone is completely arbitrary. What difference does being on the south side of 300 metres/1,000 feet/100 stories actually make to anything in reality?

Until the limits of structural engineering (and users' appetite for ear-popping elevator rides) mandate that we literally cannot build buildings any taller, there will always be a new "tallest building in the world" under construction. Soon, even the much ballyhooed Burj Khalifa will be "bested" by towers currently under construction, and towers even taller than those are in various stages of development. The idea that Toronto is somehow a less serious, ambitious, or impressive city because its planning process or developers reduce building heights (for a variety of reasons) is ludicrous.

Cities with some of the world's most admired urban experiences—Paris, Barcelona, etc.—are neither known for nor associated with particularly tall buildings. What's much more important, as others on this thread have pointed out, is what city-building endeavours are made at the ground level, where real people actually interact with buildings.

What's more, I'd sacrifice any amount of height to bring a greater level of architectural intrigue to many of the buildings both current and proposed in this city; how many people actually prefer the Pinnacle Centre Yonge st. buildings to any of the city's more interesting designs? The city has a serious dearth of genuinely wonderful contemporary architecture (a friend in from London on the weekend said to me of the skyline less the CN Tower, "it could be Dallas")—what we need, in my view is a louder discussion, aimed at developers, that demands beauty and intrigue in design and excellence at the ground level.

 

[FMCS]

Very true on the design and beauty of many of the cities new projects, but there have been a few proposals and some currently under construction that are heading in that direction (The Well, Arthouse, etc come to mind). But at the same time there is no reason we can't have tall buildings that incorporate a wonderful pedestrian experience as well.

 

[ADRM]

Yes, agree on both points: There are some encouraging developments (I'd put BIG King W. at the top of that list), and tall buildings definitely serve a purpose in city-building (namely that, if other factors are also correctly accounted for, they can help curb sprawl and add much needed density). What I was taking umbrage with was the outcry that results from building heights being reduced from above an arbitrary milestone to below it.

 

[67Cup]

Agreed, height is not everything but it is not nothing either. The prime symbol of Paris is that very tall object, the Eiffel Tower, for 41 years the tallest manmade structure in the world. As for Barcelona, Gaudi designed a, for the time, extremely tall central steeple on the Sagreda Familia. It will be 165 metres, IIRC. Height is inherently interesting. And yes, Toronto's skyline would be much more dull, "less the CN Tower" as your friend rightly noted.

It is true that particular measures of height such as 300 m are usually arbitrary and to be emotionally wedded to them is foolish. Would it not also be arbitrary and, perhaps, foolish, reflexively to want to cut height? If there is a reason for cutting height, say shadows on a playground to give an example, that is one thing. Cutting for cutting's sake, if that were to happen, would be another. I have not seen a specific reason for cutting height on this location. If one is offered, it should be considered on its own merits, not some pro or anti height reflex.

It also seems to me that height and careful attention to the ground level experience are not mutually exclusive categories. Not with the thing we both want, genuinely wonderful contemporary architecture.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Agreed, height is not everything but it is not nothing either. The prime symbol of Paris is that very tall object, the Eiffel Tower, for 41 years the tallest manmade structure in the world. As for Barcelona, Gaudi designed a, for the time, extremely tall central steeple on the Sagreda Familia. It will be 165 metres, IIRC. Height is inherently interesting. And yes, Toronto's skyline would be much more dull, "less the CN Tower" as your friend rightly noted.

Beyond economic reasons for building tall, height comes with special responsibilities for adding a sense of place - something that is more often than not missing in proposals here.

AoD

 

[67Cup]

Agreed re many proposals in Toronto. A 96 storey proposal at 1 Yonge must be held to a higher standard than a 26 storey proposal stuck somewhere in the construction equivalent of a corner. I am more optimistic that HP might rise to that challenge than that several other firms would do so.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Agreed re many proposals in Toronto. A 96 storey proposal at 1 Yonge must be held to a higher standard than a 26 storey proposal stuck somewhere in the construction equivalent of a corner. I am more optimistic that HP might rise to that challenge than that several other firms would do so.

So far this proposal appears merely competent, not exceptional - and yet we are in all likelihood going to suffice ourselves with that, which is unfortunate.

AoD

 

[ADRM]

Agree with lots of nuggets in the last few comments. One thing that's important to keep in mind, though, is that the end product of a design often has much more to do with the needs, wants, and limitations (either externally- or self-imposed) of the developer, rather than the architect. While it's definitely true that HP has designed some great projects for Toronto, what makes me skeptical about this project is the inclusion of Pinnacle in the equation.

As I think a UT staff member commented up-thread, it's crucial that folks demand excellence from developers, as many are driven ultimately by cost considerations as the be all, end all. That's understandable to a degree, of course, but stopping there leaves out the observation that every private development anywhere in the world that created a wonderful building, from ground floor to penthouse, was driven by the same or similar pressures, yet managed to be completed.

I find this current proposal tough to judge in its entirety at the moment without more detailed renderings and specifics relating to at-grade experience, facade, building materials, etc. I agree wholeheartedly with the earlier comment about needing to hold developers to a higher standard of design and urban experience on strategically important or high-profile plots of land such as this.

 

[greenleaf]

This really feels like a mess on ground level. They need some psychogeographic work done here. How will most pedestrians enter and exit the space? The development needs more of a "Main Street" I think. This could be along Yonge, or there is mostly retail on the new east-west street here which is good, but they need to go much further and design out clear delineation of retail with opportunities for small retailers here. They can replicate a old street style with small, but deep stores. This style works so well why are we trying to reinvent the wheel here? Pinnacle, please take some cues from the Westbank's Honest Ed's proposal and prepare a diverse slate of retail.

Another issue are these massive loading bays. Maybe they are doing this (it is a large development), but there seems to be a missed opportunity to do what the Manulife Building at Charles & Balmuto does and put a giant ramp going one level underground for all deliveries and garbage/recycling pick up. That would open up so much more ground level space.

The gym space is good. Was there mention of potential movie theatre going here at some point? Looking at the Manulife model again, that would be great here. The live and work is happening here, but where's the play?

With the exception of the design of the tower on the southeast corner, I'm really not feeling this.

ETA: Manulife is a mixed bag at ground level, but could have certainly been worse. What it does really well is have a great mix of stores and retail sizes.

 

[ADRM]

Great points here—and agreed that Westbank has proposed a great public realm scenario for Honest Ed's area. That feels much more organic than a lot of the proposals of this sort you see around the world; the Kerry Centre in Shanghai (image below) is one I've been to recently that I think is the model for what not to do with big office-residential developments.

So often, the contemporary default is to say "here's your two pieces of public art, here are your nice pavers, here is your fancy landscaping, here are your new lamp standards, here's where the Starbucks will go, and here's 10 square metres of grass, there you go, people; you're welcome." And that's just crap.

Let's see some ambition, Pinnacle; make up for your other developments in the city, please.

 

[Shadow Weaver]

The original design for this project was the best. I still like the new rendering, it's still something different.

The taller the better. I would love, love, love a balcony on the 95th floor and be on top of the world.

If you want to live in midrise or Victorian houses move out of the city and let the city grow.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

The original design for this project was the best. I still like the new rendering, it's still something different.
The taller the better. I would love, love, love a balcony on the 95th floor and be on top of the world.
If you want to live in midrise or Victorian houses move out of the city and let the city grow.

Victorian houses (or houses in general) is exactly what we are not touching by and large in the way the city is growing.

AoD

 

[ADRM]

Choosing to live in a Victorian house in no way inhibits the development or densification of the city. Having both is one of the things that makes Toronto interesting and unique-ish.

I've lived in both a single family home and condo in this city, and I'd like to see both the preservation of older, single family structures and the continued densification through height. But I still think this proposal seriously lacks a truly ambitious design. We need better. There is absolutely no good reason why the tallest building on this site couldn't be bold on a level we see elsewhere: