Toronto The James at Scrivener Square | 88.21m | 23s | Tricon | COBE Architects

Mike, I've been to a few of these meetings as well and each time I've been shocked to see how otherwise decent and law abiding citizens behave themselves. Heckling, shouting and name-calling levelled at civil servants and councillors alike. What is happening with the ever -declining levels of civility in our society? Very dispiriting.
 
borgos,

I don't think its new. My father was a NIMBY in the 70/80s and tells of riots in Ottawa suburban planning meetings.
 
There is a good rendering on Page A9 in today's National Post, along with a report on the meeting.

It shows a 4-storey L-shaped podium extending along the south and east sides of the site, boxing in a square south of the existing Scrivener Square. The rendering seems to show an open square having two levels with a slight upslope from the west side (Yonge St.) to the east (podium building), The "five thieves" buildings facing on Yonge would be preserved.

Paul Oberman, President and CEO of Woodcliffe Corp., the developer, is quoted as saying "This is a building better than just good. It will be world-class and raise the bar for the rest of the city." (No false modesty here.) He is also quoted as being "astounded" at the lack of public squares in Toronto (have to agree on that).

I don't understand the location of the proposed restaurant. The otherwise good report in the Post is unhelpful on this point. It says that the restaurant "will sit atop the abandoned CP Rail bridge near Summerhill Avenue". Problem is, this bridge is anything but abandoned. This continues to be the main CP line across Toronto, with many trains per day. I look forward to some clarification on this.
 
It is true that a 38 story tower would be out of place in a low-rise neighbourhood, but I say there shouldn't even be a low-rise neighbourhood so close to the subway and the city's main arterial road, and also a future GO train line.
 
Well, the "low-rise neighbourhood" does happen to contain some of the best 19th-century architecture in the city, and some of its most aesthetically harmonious residential streets. I'd say that regardless of location that is somewhat valuable.

As for Yonge street itself, yeah, I guess it could stand some intensification...one could start with the Rogers Video strip mall and the Budget outlet.
 
Obviously if people only focus on height in such a visceral way, its because some subconcious isssues are involved. Simply put people are threatened by homes towering over them in the figurative sense. It makes them feel smaller. Shadows are not the isssue but its the only one they are comfortable expressing.
 
I agree with Hume on this one. The key issue here is GOOD DESIGN. The developer is doing the right thing here with the public square, attention to historical significance, etc., and there is no reward but screaming homeowners. These NIMBYs have to pick their battles. Many of them wouldn't know good design if it stood in front of them and whacked them about the face and neck with a cricket bat. The thing that gets me is that they are the same people who want to live in an exciting cosmopolitan city with cool things to do and places to see, but they don't support the intensification that will make that happen. So frustrating. I'm going out to the garage to get my cricket bat.
 
Here's the render from the Post.

Scrivener.jpg
 
I really like the look of the square, as Scrievener needs some major beefing up to work at all. But the building itself looks like it might be precasterrific--as we can see from the nearby Thornwood condos, ta Rosedale location doesn't ensure high-quality materials.
 
Regarding the rendering: well, that's one more small piece of the puzzle. Would it have killed the Post to show the whole complex, or has it not been designed any high up yet?

In any case, what they have depicted doesn't look so landmarkish as much as it looks - - - uh, boring: there's nothing new or fresh about the design. It will be nice for the square to have tree-shaded restaurant patios, etc., but it sure doesn't look anyone's imagination was stretched for this one.

In any case, what will get built here is unlikely to look much like this rendering: the rather powerful neighbourhood surrounding this site is never going to let 38 floors get through the approvals process, so there will be some redesigns on this one, possibly several. And despite the builder's protestations that he needs 38 floors to give us this square, clearly a larger proportion of the building's footprint could be reaching skyward above the podium (just not as high) without having to encroach on the planned square.

42
 
Fair enough that the neighbourhood has good 19th century archictecture and harmonious streets. Will the project destroy that? It is being built right on Yonge no?
 
That's Yonge crossing from the bottom to the right side of the picture, so practically right on it: the five thieves buildings are still shown fronting on Yonge.

42
 
Re: neighbourhood. The surrounding area is quite pleasant, but the streets bordering this development are really marginal. Mathersfield Drive, to the east, is entirely occupied with 1990's houses. Price Street, to the south, is dominated by a tennis and lawn club, and is rather incoherent as a street. You really have to cross Yonge or go down to Rowanwood (and also cross the TTC tracks) before there is anything resembling coherence.
 
True, but 38 floors hold sway over far more than the closest adjoining properties: this building will feel like it's in people's backyards for several blocks around.

Living in the central area one cannot avoid landmarks on the horizon, but many people will feel too close to this building to be comfortable with its height. This will bring out (and already is bringing out) lots of BANANAs and NIMBYs. We'll see how it shakes out..

42
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top