Toronto TeaHouse 501 Yonge Condominiums | 170.98m | 52s | Lanterra | a—A

At 170 meters 9-21 Grenville is basically across the street, so I don't see why there is discussion about the height here. It matters not if it is 150 floors, the only thing that matters is if it meets the street properly. That is the end all/be all of buildings once they are built. 10 years after the fact, anyone walking by has long since forgotten what is above the second floor anyway. All anyone cares about is their favourite coffee shop, cafe or fruit store is being renovated. Or worse case scenario, you get one of those crappy, pseudo-mall like podia that is sterile, cookie-cutter repetitive and bereft of life.
 
WanderLust said:
I'm trying to visualize what 2 x 58s on that block would look like ... and it might really overwhelm the street and neighbourhood, especially considering the other tall buildings being proposed in the general vicinity. Yuck.View attachment 7329
Click to expand...

It'll be something ridiculous like this. Yuck is right.

2x58s.jpg
 
Ramako said:
I still can't understand how the difference between 40 storeys and 58 storeys is actually supposed to make a perceptible difference at street level. 40 storeys will still massively overwhelm the neighbourhood. An extra 18 beyond that becomes marginal. I'd understand if you were staking your claim at 4 to 12 storeys, but if you're fine and dandy with 40 storeys on Yonge, then is an extra 18 really the thing that's going to make all the difference? To the random person walking down Yonge Street, it won't make a difference. Going 40 storeys (as opposed to 60 storeys or 4 storeys) is a compromise that satisfies neither side of the argument.
Click to expand...


it's about appropriate massing and context of what's in the immediate areas.

Murano, the Met, RoCP ... all relatively newer builds are in the 30s-40s range.
considering the Met is right on the corner of Yonge/Carlton and on the subway line, even it is substantially shorter than the 58s proposed here.

if you want height for height's sake, let's give the developers carte blanche and build super-talls.
the city can save itself the time and money with planning dept, appeals, guidelines, etc.

frankly, the desire by developers to go taller have nothing to do with civic duty for environmental responsibility etc but profitability, otherwise, the products wouldn't be all glass towers that are cheaper to construct and environmentally wasteful in terms of heating/cooling; narrow and long units with interior bedrooms (aka dens marketed as something else); poor noise suppression between units because minimum code allows them to just slap 2 pieces of drywall over a stud frame and be done with it.
 
Automation Gallery said:
Hahaha damn, looks like the former World Trade Centre..for goodness sake they are only going to be 58 floors. Chill:D
Click to expand...

The condo to the left of the site (Cosmopolitan) is only 18 floors, the two Murano condos on the far right are 35 and 42 storeys high, what I roughed in there is not totally out of context if 58 storey proposals are correct. Traynor is a genius at this type of thing, I am not, but I don't think I'm too far off.
Was this photo taken from 24 Wellesley W.?
 
dt_toronto_geek said:
It'll be something ridiculous like this. Yuck is right.

2x58s.jpg
Click to expand...

Wow. Thanks for putting that perspective together, and it's really accurate by the scale you picked. That other proposed condo on Grenville, will be a few floors less but directly south-west, it's going to be dark and WINDY !!
 
Fear not dt_geek, if you were intending the taller one to be about 200m, you got it almost bang on.
 
These towers would be in my view plane from Encore, but bring it on - as long as the towers are gracile like Murano, and not at all like those squat precast clad 30 story rentals at Bay and Wellesley. Cdr108 is mostly right - what matters most is at ground level, but a badly massed a la Lexington I can do without.
 
Realistically, when you add in the Grenville project, Aura, and Five I don't think 58 storeys is hugely out of line. 40 seems like it would be maybe more like it, but as others have noted the difference between 40 and 58 from a pedestrian's perspective is nil. As long as the ground floor and podium are well designed I say bring it on. It'd be nice to see a wider sidewalk (maybe with some weather protection) and some benches / plantings as well. Yonge can be awfully desolate in the greenery department.
 
As long as the ground floor and podium are well designed I say bring it on.
Click to expand...

Indeed.....height shouldn't really matter - but we don't want to turn this section of Yonge into another Bay St. wasteland...so what you are saying is absolutely the crucial point..
 
yyzer said:
Indeed.....height shouldn't really matter - but we don't want to turn this section of Yonge into another Bay St. wasteland...so what you are saying is absolutely the crucial point..
Click to expand...

Bay Street isn't a wasteland because of height. It's a waste land because of some really poorly designed podiums. If height were the root of the problem on Bay Street, the construction of ROCP, Murano, Burano and Lumiere would have made Bay Street an even more desolate and soulless place - they haven't. On the other hand, there are countless examples of relatively shorter buildings on Bay Street with street levels that are downright suburban. Height's not the issue. There's no reason why taller buildings can't exist within vibrant neighbourhoods.
 
The height here may be a concern.....

But of greater concern is the volume and style of parking.........

All parking is proposed to be above grade, (5 floors I think)...and as I understand it ....no camouflage or masking layer of residential/office or retail, but instead parking visible from the street.

Most regrettable.

Municipal Planning needs people's help on this one.....contact the local councillor and show up at the community meeting w/your views.

I have a reliable source......(VERY) that the developer was encouraged by planning to go w/no parking on this site....and refused.

Considering RCMI sold out in 2 weekends w/no parking....you have to wonder what Lanterra is thinking.......
 
Here's some views of a crude sketchup model I did of the site. It has a ten-storey podium of just over one hundred feet, plus two forty-eight storey towers atop it, for 58 storeys, or, a total of six hundred feet in height.

xyongeproposal3_aerial.jpg



xyongeproposal_aerialne.jpg



xyongeproposal2_aerialw.jpg



Looking north from Yonge and College:
xyongeproposal5_yongecollege.jpg



Looking south down Yonge from Dundonald:
xyongeproposal6_dundonld.jpg



Looking southwest over Church and Wellesley
xyongeproposal4_overvillage.jpg



From Church and Maitland, looking east
xyongeproposal7_churchmaitland.jpg



From Jarvis and Maitland, looking east
xyongeproposal8_jarvismaitland.jpg



From University and College
xyongeproposal9_universitycoll.jpg



Aerial, looking down Yonge
xyongeproposal10aerials.jpg



Looking East - southeast from the lot at Opera Place, at Wellesley.
xyongestreetproposal11_operapl.jpg
 
Ramako said:
Bay Street isn't a wasteland because of height. It's a waste land because of some really poorly designed podiums. If height were the root of the problem on Bay Street, the construction of ROCP, Murano, Burano and Lumiere would have made Bay Street an even more desolate and soulless place - they haven't. On the other hand, there are countless examples of relatively shorter buildings on Bay Street with street levels that are downright suburban. Height's not the issue. There's no reason why taller buildings can't exist within vibrant neighbourhoods.
Click to expand...

Ramako, I agree with you totally.....that was my point....it's o.k. to build tall, but how this project meets the street is crucial....the problem with Bay south of Bloor is not a height issue imo, the problem is that engagement with the pedestrian is so poor....even Murano fails at this I think....
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top