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

Do you guys know what Tower this is?

RoCP3-52.Cassius.Adams2_.jpg



Take a Guess!

.
.
hint
.
.
.
.
hint

.... It was redesigned and was this close from becoming a supertall in Toronto.

It's a tower we've all come to know and love, infact its already under construction, about 2 floors up so far.
 
That's actually the original design for Aura (College Park III). The second tower is hidden behind this one, at the corner of Yonge/Gerrard.
 
Yeah, that's Aura, by Caisusus, from UT - So all hope is not lost. Guys, I don't think the city will let 501 Yonge fly "AS IS"

There is still lots of potential here.
 
I am of the opinion that the developer has a wild plan up their sleeve, that ordinarily would be too tall or too controversial to get approved, so they release this horrendous render to strike the fear of God into the city planning department. "See how bad it could be if you don't give us what we want?"
 
egotrippin said:
What about Pier 21, their proposal for the Greyhound site, Market Wharf, or Ice (as you mentioned). All of those projects are quite unique, and show more variety than Toronto's more concerning architectural offenders (think Kirkor or Page and Steele). And again, we've still only seen elevations which may not even be final. Besides, I'd rather two "boring" aA boxes than two Uptowns or something like that monstrosity planned for 40 Scott St. At least at this height something so restrained is far less offensive than a failure of historical pastiche.
Click to expand...

Pier 21, Market Wharf and Ice are all fantastic, as are Casa, X, 18 Yorkville, the Four Seasons, Theatre Park and many more. Those were all projects that were designed several years ago. Though they all used similar design principles, they had variety in form and material, and you could easily distinguish between them. They work together but stand apart.

That kind of variety is severely lacking in their more recent designs such as 501 Yonge, 18 Grenville, Peter Street Condos and the many towers at 609 Sherbourne. I'd include King Charlotte in that list, but at least they threw a random big red box on top, I guess. I think it's also a pretty safe bet that we're going to see something very similar for 42 Charles. I admit that I am impressed by designs like the one for the Greyhound parcel and the George Richmond, but that kind of innovation seems to be the exception for aA now, whereas previously it was the rule.

Instead of becoming bolder as time goes on, aA has regressed to virtually copying and pasting the most basic features of their prior work, which only serves to water down their catalogue. Murano, Burano, 18 Grenville and 501 Yonge all being within a block of each other will make it more difficult to really appreciate any of them individually. I love Mies' TD Towers, but imagine if the entire CBD was nothing but a dozen of them... too much of a good thing.
 
Last edited:
I never understand why the dealings of City Planners and developers is considered to be above board in practice anyway.

The City decides the absolute limit a plot of land can hold such as a height limit, but can be paid off to look the other way. All the developer has to do is throw some money at new sidewalks and the city approves more density.

That is: In the form of the money to public art or neighbourhood improvements and the like. It just seems to me that the City's morals are up for sale. I know I caught a lot of flak a couple of years ago for suggesting the council members are on the take, but I didn't mean the council members personally. I meant the City as a whole. Their morals and standards are up for sale. Seriously how else can you explain this practice? Why is it considered OK?

Either the limit is really the limit, or you have purposely set it low to extort money from the developers to fix infrastructure you don't want to use tax money to fix.

I wish other limits in society had such an open and public display, that it is for sale for the right price....

"You can't kill you wife or you will go to jail... Oh, you want to donate a ton of money to a charity for a battered women's shelter?... OK... Go ahead, kill your wife."
 
The City decides the absolute limit a plot of land can hold such as a height limit, but can be paid off to look the other way.
Click to expand...

...and if that doesn't work, the OMB will over rule the city anyway.
 
Traynor said:
The City decides the absolute limit a plot of land can hold such as a height limit, but can be paid off to look the other way. All the developer has to do is throw some money at new sidewalks and the city approves more density.

That is: In the form of the money to public art or neighbourhood improvements and the like. It just seems to me that the City's morals are up for sale.
Click to expand...
Morals? That seems an odd way to describe what is just the normal give and take of city development. Densities are not some ethical issue, they are about infrastructure and quality of life. If a developer is willing to improve the local quality of life with neighbourhood improvements, that may indeed offset any degradation to the quality of life from increased density.
 
^But it is morals...

"We, as the City, feel that anything over 50 floors would negatively impact on the surrounding neighbourhood and the residents who live there. Their lives will be disrupted and hindered by the increased population. Their views will be obliterated and the amount of sunlight they receive will be diminished. All of these reasons amount to a standard of living that is unacceptable for the existing residents and we are here to protect their rights. Furthermore, we stand by our beliefs.....

Oh... You're gunna give us 2 million bucks?...

Right then.... off you go!"

Ethics, morals or standards... Call it what you like... They are up for sale.
 
Last edited:
But they aren't giving the bureaucrats 2 million, they are giving 2 million worth of amenities to the neighbourhood. You're implying that this is like bribery, that somehow the bureaucrats or councillors are personally profiting, which is absurd. This is, as I said, a reasonable give and take in city building. Circumstances change regularly, which is why zoning laws get altered and other changes to the city plan occur.

Now I agree that one doesn't want this to happen without consideration. But it is not ridiculous in principle.
 
It is ridiculous. A developer gets what it wants by greasing the palms of the City. How many times do I have to say it.... NOT EACH INDIVIDUAL COUNCILLOR... but the city as a whole. Why are people being so obtuse about understanding this distinction?

Why defend a practice that is blatantly all about money, but disguised as an ethic to protect development from getting out of control?

I'll say it yet another way... You claim that receiving 2 million bucks in amenities mitigates the original reasons the height was objected to? I don't see this in practice. A building is too tall because of the pressure on infrastructure, transit and residents but adding some public art like a giant sculpture or a light feature on the roof somehow makes up for this????? HOW????

And talking about councillors... In essence they are personally profiting... here's how:

A council member only has that job because of votes from constituents in their riding. The residents want better sidewalks but also wants lower taxes. The councillor that gets it done, gets re-elected. How do you pay for better sidewalks without raising taxes? You get private developers to pay for it, in exchange for more density. Voters re-elect you for fixing up their neighbourhood without raising taxes.

Don't be naive. That is politics. I just don't know why it's legal. You can't do it in other practices.

"This building must pass certain codes... Or pay some money to the city and we'll look the other way." That is not acceptable, so why is selling out the standard of lifestyle of some residents for some money acceptable in your books?
 
TheKingEast said:
Spire and Casa are some excellent glass boxes though. I wouldn't mind seeing something similar at this location.
Click to expand...

Personally, I have nothing against glass boxes per se. There are, as you point out, some perfectly lovely glass boxes around the city. It's impossible to tell from this simple elevation sketch, but this could well turn out to be a wonderfully executed glass box, a model of restrained elegance.

But at the best part of 60 storeys, and right smack on Yonge St., I feel like this is no place for restrained elegance. I was hoping to see something a little daring here, a bold design to befit its prominent place on the skyline. A worthy filling for the Aura - 1 Bloor sandwich. A glass box -- even a really nice one -- is not that.

The fact that aA has produced some much more interesting buildings just makes this all that much more disappointing. C'mon guys, why are you holding back here? Go for the gusto, dammit!
 
So Traynor, to recap, in exchange for more density, the developer provides more money for city infrastructure so taxes stay lower, and the citizens in the wards where this occurs like it so much they re-elect their councillor, rather than complain about the density increase. How is this not just democracy?
 
It is democracy, sadly. Proving democracy can be bought for a price.

However, you are missing the point I was making all along...

If everyone is happy with the higher density that gets built, then the lower number was just arbitrary and set low to extort money all along. It is not honest and above board.

That is the dishonesty I was railing about from the beginning. Just admit that there are no height restrictions, if the right amount of money is offered.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top