Toronto The One | 308.6m | 85s | Tridel | Foster + Partners

[interchange42]

There's nothing over-the-top tacky about this design at all, as far as I can see. To me it looks like it's all form follows beautiful function. It has a less-is-more strength, just on the diagonal for a bit of flare.

I'm not aware of any order that Mizrahi is contravening by taking down the building. He has his demolition permit.

42

 

[Bad Bear]

Funny you mention that, I walked past it today, and saw a huge, heavy duty excavator along with several workers, tearing apart what remains of Stollery's. I was under the impression that all work was halted until given the green light by city council, have I missed something (wouldn't be the first time, won't be the last ), or are they just ignoring the city and moving forward regardless? Is that even legal? I know I'm in the minority here, but I actually like the current design (I know what you're thinking, but to each his/her own) with the exoskeleton. It's tall, slender dominance and unique exterior will definitely add much needed character to our often drab, green or blue walled glass skyline. Being "unique" myself, I've always routed for the underdog, and while I despise over the top tacky, I honestly think this design has exactly what Toronto needs, a little flavour, kind of l what the John Hancock Tower does for the Chicago skyline, but meah, it's all good, if we all agreed on everything, this would be a really boring web site, and if anyone can fill me in on the building permit status for The One, it would be greatly appreciated

I don't think you're in the minority at all, many users have already show their appreciation for this project.

 

[Benito]

I like the design as well.

 

[Bogtrotter]

I think Foster has done more interesting looking buildings- the Bow for instance, but I thought this design appropriate for the location. In fact it reminded be a bit of the new 432 Park Ave building in NY which also has a dramatic width to height ratio. The exoskeleton is unique for this city and the colour choice for it will be a welcome change as well.

 

[Tuscani01]

I think Foster has done more interesting looking buildings- the Bow for instance, but I thought this design appropriate for the location. In fact it reminded be a bit of the new 432 Park Ave building in NY which also has a dramatic width to height ratio. The exoskeleton is unique for this city and the colour choice for it will be a welcome change as well.

I find the Bow extremely underwhelming - Looks like a pretty cheaped out Foster project. If The One sticks to the colour palette seen in the renderings, it will definitely beat The Bow in terms of being more interesting imo.

 

[Bogtrotter]

I thought the they remained faithful to the original design for the Bow, which I thought was a refreshing step outside the traditional box- especially for Calgary where the architecture truly does underwhelm. But it was not quite completed when I saw it in person so perhaps the finished product disappoints. Anyway I'm almost afraid to like this one as Toronto has a history of watering down projects and lopping height. Hopefully it moves ahead as planned and indeed sticks to the original colour scheme.

 

[johnwood]

Must a sustainably growing city preclude car ownership for so many people?

I would agree with you that fewer active cars must be on the road, with public transit being *the* option for the majority of commuters; though, instead of eliminating parking space and refusing to allow a portion of the market to participate in owning and driving their own vehicles, I think that a dense and sustainable city is able to and should be allowed to stabilize traffic congestion and create an ideal flow for economic goods through costing the activity of car usage.

To prevent lost economic productivity due to traffic congestion: there should be a price to pay for not participating in traffic security -- aka: public transit. Intelligently, there may be a spectrum of pay ratios, allowing car owners a variety in the frequency of their car usage.
Drivers must pay, and virtually everyone must use public transit at least some of the time. A majority will use regularly, while a minority of people will almost always be using their cars.
The appropriate public revenues may be generated from persons wishing to exclusively use their cars.

I'm pro car ownership, but I also acknowledge the capacity limits of our roads and that "more roads" is not the answer.
Car ownership contributes to the economy, the creation of jobs, a driver for innovation; while, with sprawl -- the more I read about its public costs through infrastructure maintenance, environmental degradation and the negative impacts to human health, the more anti-sprawl I become, the more frustrated I am to see centrally relocated land go undeveloped and underdeveloped while low-density, subsidized real estate sucks up most of the market in most of Canada's municipalities.

We cannot deal with debt at any government level until we deal with sprawl.

As far as 'The One' goes, which pertains to this thread, I would not be disappointed by the construction of parking spaces underground. All parking should be underground, or at least verticalized in garages or parkades.

Community space is not for parking; it is for infrastructure and natural habitat.

One thing they have to do sooner or later is get rid of 2 way traffic on youge and bay streets and convert them to one way streets going in opposite directions. For example Youge st can go in the direction of north and Bay street can go south.

 

[someMidTowner]

One thing they have to do sooner or later is get rid of 2 way traffic on youge and bay streets and convert them to one way streets going in opposite directions. For example Youge st can go in the direction of north and Bay street can go south.

Don't think I have ever heard of this "Youge" Street. Must be in the burbs or something I mean, unless of course that was a double typo on the more well-known Yonge Street?

 

[E.B.]

Personally I think to reduce driving you simply charge more for the ability to drive. Could be tolls. Could be more gas tax. Could be increased parking fees. I have no problem with trying to encourage people to walk, bike or take transit. But for the crazy people who are willing to pay then they should be able to.

If we "just" simply charge fees or "just" restrict parking spots or " just" more taxes. Simple answers for complex problems. sounds like simple answers for simple...

Why don't we "just" limit the gardiner & 401 to two lanes each way, that's a simple way to resolve the problem.

While we're at it, a simple way to resolve the rapid rise in healthcare costs would be to "just" limit access to hospitals for those who are under 80yrs old.

 

[ProjectEnd]

One thing they have to do sooner or later is get rid of 2 way traffic on youge and bay streets and convert them to one way streets going in opposite directions. For example Youge st can go in the direction of north and Bay street can go south.

So people can treat the heart of downtown like motorway? The notion that drivers are owed a certain rate of speed through an urban space is both dated and empirically detrimental for the environment in question.

 

[buildup]

So people can treat the heart of downtown like motorway? The notion that drivers are owed a certain rate of speed through an urban space is both dated and empirically detrimental for the environment in question.

Very wordy, but there's nothing wrong with promoting effective traffic flow. New York seems to feel its the better way.

 

[sixrings]

If we "just" simply charge fees or "just" restrict parking spots or " just" more taxes. Simple answers for complex problems. sounds like simple answers for simple...

Why don't we "just" limit the gardiner & 401 to two lanes each way, that's a simple way to resolve the problem.

While we're at it, a simple way to resolve the rapid rise in healthcare costs would be to "just" limit access to hospitals for those who are under 80yrs old.

Pricing people out of doing something isn't a simple solution for simple people but rather a realistic solution for how we instinctively change based on price. It is why when water costs so much more in Europe people more often have showers than bath tubs. It is why some people don't wash their clothes in Europe after only wearing them once. In Europe where gas costs twice as much and in some countries like Netherlands there is a massive tax on the purchase of a vehicle, why more people bike, walk and take transit. The costs of things dictate how often we use them. Want to know why people love to use freeways, because they're FREE!

 

[Lenser]

Except they're not free at all. It's simply that the money which maintains them is part of the general tax revenue. Everybody pays for 'em even if they rarely - or never - use 'em.

 

[E.B.]

Pricing people out of doing something isn't a simple solution for simple people but rather a realistic solution for how we instinctively change based on price. It is why when water costs so much more in Europe people more often have showers than bath tubs. It is why some people don't wash their clothes in Europe after only wearing them once. In Europe where gas costs twice as much and in some countries like Netherlands there is a massive tax on the purchase of a vehicle, why more people bike, walk and take transit. The costs of things dictate how often we use them. Want to know why people love to use freeways, because they're FREE!

Europeans have compact cities compared to N.American cities. Using those forms of transportation are much easier. Our sprawl is what it is. We can look back with 20/20 hindsight and say we shouldn't have done it. Also, it isn't practical to ask a 60yr old person or a 8mth pregnant woman in Etobicoke to ride their bike downtown on a snowy/icy january day.
Removing parking spots causes a revenue shortfall(isn't it pathetic that parking infractions are considered revenue and that the city depends on it.) Toronto thrives on people coming in to the core. The city in it's wisdom is removing parking in and around subway stations eg Islington station, instead of building larger underground parking.

You don't have to shout "FREE!". You should know that most everyone knows that city taxes pay for freeways.

 

[freshcutgrass]

Except they're not free at all. It's simply that the money which maintains them is part of the general tax revenue. Everybody pays for 'em even if they rarely - or never - use 'em.

The point he was making is that they are 100% publicly subsidized. And they shouldn't be. It's crazy how we have user fees for pretty much everything else these days...except the one thing that we would like to have people use less of.

Just goes to show you how addicted we are to the fantasy of sustainable car use.