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

Parkdalian said:
And people may bemoan a singular montonous design aesthetic as a killer of retail, but that's exactly how Paris is designed.
Click to expand...

Urban Shocker said:
And, before that, Regent Street in London.
Click to expand...

This had occurred to me. aA's work is a promising aesthetic, and I adore most of what that team turns out, however I feel that the comparison to Yonge doesn't serve. Simply put, Yonge requires the kind of expert attention that will allow some old gems to stand out. Foiling all of those old structures with the same brand of new architecture everywhere doesn't conjure up an appealing image, at least to me.

I am fairly certain that something gorgeous and inviting can be designed for the 501 Yonge site. The public has a stake in this development because of the Yonge frontage, so let's have a show of good taste.

Just a suggestion: I am not height-averse ... if they want to go tall then by all means go tall, but let's have the truly emaciated look (like Four Seasons only more so) and the buildings should be set at a quarter-turn -- just a gesture that would take the towers out of the ordinary, and impart the deserved variety on Yonge St.
 
Last edited:
TonyV said:
This had occurred to me. aA's work is a promising aesthetic, and I adore most of what that team turns out, however I feel that the comparison to Yonge doesn't serve. Simply put, Yonge requires the kind of expert attention that will allow some old gems to stand out. Foiling all of those old structures with the same brand of new architecture everywhere doesn't conjure up an appealing image, at least to me.

I am fairly certain that something gorgeous and inviting can be designed for the 501 Yonge site. The public has a stake in this development because of the Yonge frontage, so let's have a show of good taste.

Just a suggestion: I am not height-averse ... if they want to go tall then by all means go tall, but let's have the truly emaciated look (like Four Seasons only more so) and the buildings should be set at a quarter-turn -- just a gesture that would take the towers out of the ordinary, and impart the deserved variety on Yonge St.
Click to expand...


is aA on this project as well??
 
Yeah, but the Murano retail sections are still being used by the developer to sell condos.

So I saw wait a few months (years?) and things will get a little better at this section of Bay Street.
 
Traynor said:
Yes, I was going to say this as well. The same for London. Where the upper 7 floors, gable and roofs may all be alike and even the storefronts with similar "bones", where they are varied is what makes them unique: Flower carts out front, awnings, vegetable stands, cafe umbrellas, sandwich board advertising, sidewalks with planters and benches etc...

That's what brings the urban life to the street. Whereas flat storefronts with identical size, signage, colour or windows and barren sidewalks, kills street life. A la Murano.
Click to expand...

Give the modernism of today 200 years of age, and I'm not sure it will be all that different from the Haussmann modernism of 19th century Paris. There were plenty of contemporaneous critiques of Haussman that argued he was destroying all of the messy culture of Paris and replacing it with rigidly imagined perfection that was driven by greed and bourgeoisie property speculation. As buildings age, they vary and mutate through the additions and alterations that are made, offering all of the differentation that your vibrancy requires.

In fact, while people think that by arguing for buildings that "meet the street" better, I think most people are arguing that the problem with Toronto is that there isn't enough rigidity in the design by-laws or that there is only one right way to attract vibrancy. Which, in effect, makes these people supporters of Le Corbusier as opposed to Jacobs. Trying to legislate or define vibrancy is not how you encourage vibrancy. And most people seem to assume that once a building is built, it will stay that way forever - which is a huge Modernist conceit. What we should be legislating is flexibility, rather than for specific design ideas that will slip in and out of vogue. Why do we assume that we have to build everything exactly "right" (according to the dominant design theories) the first time or else it's doomed?
 
Last edited:
Parkdalian said:
In fact, while people think that by arguing for buildings that "meet the street" better, I think most people are arguing that the problem with Toronto is that there isn't enough rigidity in the design by-laws or that there is only one right way to attract vibrancy. Which, in effect, makes these people supporters of Le Corbusier as opposed to Jacobs. Trying to legislate or define vibrancy is not how you encourage vibrancy. And most people seem to assume that once a building is built, it will stay that way forever - which is a huge Modernist conceit. What we should be legislating is flexibility, rather than for specific design ideas that will slip in and out of vogue. Why do we assume that we have to build everything exactly "right" (according to the dominant design theories) the first time or else it's doomed?
Click to expand...

1) I don't think the haphazard, flexible, human-scaled urbanism Jane Jacobs was talking about applies to enormous development companies with the power to level entire blocks and replace them with single buildings.

2) The main difference between Le Corbusier and Jacobs is not that Le Corbusier tried to impose universal design restrictions. Rise and Fall of Great American Cities is full of urban design "rules". They're just written from the perspective of someone who standing on the street rather than someone standing above a model in a university office somewhere.

3) There are plenty of good and bad examples of new condominium development in Toronto. We should be taking advantage of all of this development activity to help guide new development. I'm not sure anyone wants to wait 50-100 years to find out which buildings will become vibrant bohemian enclaves and which become vacant dead zones.
 
Urban Shocker said:
And, before that, Regent Street in London.
Click to expand...

i actually visited Regent Street on multiple occasions since 2008 and, at first, the 'wall of common aesthetic' did feel a bit peculiar as i did have to spend an additional two or three seconds to discern one shop with the other. nowadays, i simply adapted.
 
ibookg6 said:
this thread has slowed down lately.. any update on when the community consultation meeting will be?
Click to expand...

Perhaps at some point after Lanterra can stop their other projects from raining shards of glass directly onto the public below?

The fine for this sort of epic disaster should be a giant chunk of their reputation lost.
 
I'm no fan of this project but I think we should ease up on Lanterra. They didn't do this on purpose, it looks like it's faulty glass which isn't their fault. Even Building Inspectors signed off on the north tower balconies before all this began again a few weeks ago.
 
Last edited:
Ya know,all this banter about retail??... Yet I can't think of a more fluid entity, than the state of retail, along any stretch anywhere in North America.
Business's come n go so quickly, and in today's era of super Targets, and Wall marts, these seem to endanger small shops more, than facades and cladding. Obviously new space will cost more, driving some stuff out, but retail follows demand, and there's a cycling of neighborhoods/retail ongoing in urban NA.
This decades "drug hangouts", and "hooker strips", became the next decades redone unaffordable strip, that cycles down next decade into livable neighborhood with restaraunts and coffee shops. Regardless of the quality of cladding.
You can't just build new affordable shops, but 15 years from now, Murano will be so long ago "new", that it will have settled in price and attracted some great retail, and we will complain about the static new towers that are now being built.
I have seen, "Uptown" Minneapolis go from drugs and punkers 15 years ago, to up and coming neighborhood 10 years ago, to a dull place packed with suburban people filling bars and restaraunts, trying to be hip, all the small shops are gone, and the character with them. All the local independant bars are gone replaced by phony cowboy bars and frat boys wasted on the side walks, New condos, filled with empty retail shops are everywhere, and I've watched all the energy and action that used to make Uptown famous , move ten blocks east to Lyndale Ave, and now I'm watching the cycle repeat there!

So relax people, retail will come to Murano in time, and to 501 Yonge as well, it just takes time. And as soon as we really like an area , it will undergo a change as well.
 
Last edited:
I like the illustration of the visual impact of the development on that protest website. I will also be against this project if it swallows the sidewalk and directly overhangs the road.
 
Grimace said:
I like the illustration of the visual impact of the development on that protest website. I will also be against this project if it swallows the sidewalk and directly overhangs the road.
Click to expand...

Well put..I thought the same thing. I understand that they have an agenda, but to post an illustration like that which is an obvious distortion only hurts their credibility. I am not a fan of the design either, but c`mon!
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top