Toronto The One | 328.4m | 91s | Mizrahi Developments | Foster + Partners

ptbotrmpfn said:
ya well they should never be posting anything like a render till the design and everything is final. Don't get people's hopes up for great projects. Just to have them end up ordinary. It's called false advertising
Click to expand...

How is knocking a few floors off the exact same design make it any less great by and large? Perhaps a better suggestion is not to take renders too seriously until the project have received final approval (and better yet, been built).

AoD
 
AlvinofDiaspar said:
Who shouldn't bother, exactly? And for the sake of a few floors, we should give up on a quality design by a name architect? I am glad someone else is making the decisions.

AoD
Click to expand...

It's being designed by Foster+Partners, but is that to mean Norman Foster himself is designing it?
 
It should eventually end up on the Foster + Partners website, and it won't be built with their name on it without Foster approving the design, even if he hasn't designed it himself.

42
 
Would you expect architects' sites to quote the height at which the proposal was designed, or their guess as to how a local development process would affect the final approved height?
 
ptbotrmpfn said:
ya well they should never be posting anything like a render till the design and everything is final. Don't get people's hopes up for great projects. Just to have them end up ordinary. It's called false advertising more importantly this is where people will be living. Design changes are a big deal for future owners/tenants etc.
Click to expand...


It's not false advertising. It's the public planning process. Developers put forward proposals, the City and members of the public get a chance to review renderings and plans and to comment, and the project is often revised to reflect the input. The objective of the process is not to rubber stamp drawings which allegedly had gotten some "people's hopes up".
 
ptbotrmpfn said:
Sure
Click to expand...

Not sure if that "sure" represents sarcasm, but the last post is correct—that's how the development process in this city works, and does so for the betterment of our city, despite its warts.

It's a simple fact that developers enter the process with proposals that they know will change throughout the process. This development is making its way through said process in more or less exactly the manner one would expect.
 
ptbotrmpfn said:
Just my opinion. Not fact so take it easy.
Click to expand...

Have to be careful, around here anyone who dares to imply they like tall buildings is in for a fight.

I don't understand how this reduction helps in the crusade against shadows, given that shadows are not static but move during the day. However, it just doesn't matter, the building has been reduced and that's that. it will now be the third tallest in Toronto, behind One Yonge and Mirvish (assuming all goes ahead with those two projects - Mirvish has been oddly quiet).
 
Big Daddy said:
Have to be careful, around here anyone who dares to imply they like tall buildings is in for a fight.

I don't understand how this reduction helps in the crusade against shadows, given that shadows are not static but move during the day. However, it just doesn't matter, the building has been reduced and that's that. it will now be the third tallest in Toronto, behind One Yonge and Mirvish (assuming all goes ahead with those two projects - Mirvish has been oddly quiet).
Click to expand...

There is no crusade against shadows (at least not one that matters to any significant degree in terms of having a deleterious effect on development, which is what I believe you're implying). And extensive shadow studies are considered by planners and architects alike during the design and approval processes; those studies consider how those shadows change both intraday and across a year.

This height reduction, in particular, was almost surely planned for and expected by the developer.

Relentless, unbridled, ignorant NIMBYism and relentless, unbridled, ignorant YIMBYism are harmful in nearly precisely the same ways. Both are detrimental to good city building, which is why we have a clear and deliberate development planning process. It's a very straightforward concept.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top