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

I found this quote from the article to be intriguing:

"“He’s a real gentleman,†says Whaley. “This man has vision and he likes the old-world type buildings where it’s got history and character and stability and looks like it’s going to be around for a while. So that’s basically what caught my eye in the first place.â€

No doubt there is some PR in that, but I do get the strong impression that Mizrahi does want to build an enduring, and dare I say "iconic" structure here, certainly not a standard extruded condo product.
 
With M+G, The One and One Bloor East, is it fair to say that the bar has been raised architecturally in Toronto? I don't think we've see this quality of architecture throughout this cycle.

Admittedly we don't know what The One will look like, but Foster and Partners are known for the quality of their designs.
 
Whatever does eventually go up here, I'm sure it will be pretty awesome. Even though it's still years away until any construction begins, it's nice to know someone with a vision has bought the property and has big plans for it. It's an iconic location and being across the road from One Bloor E, this will be the perfect gateway to Toronto.
 
Except this is Toronto, so whatever Keesmaat & Co. doesn't dumb down, our $200k condo market certainly will.



Seriously does every thread have to get unduly negative right away? One, Keesmaat and city planners follow the current planning act do they not? If the guidelines change, then so will the approved heights, density etc. Secondly, is this not supposed to be a significantly more expensive tower? At least that's what I have read so far. Why not wait and see what is proposed before collectively losing our minds?
 
Last edited:
Seriously does every thread have to get unduly negative right away? One, Keesmaat and city planners follow the current planning act do they not? If the guidelines change, then so will the approved heights, density etc. Secondly, is this not supposed to be a significantly more expensive tower? At least that's what I have read so far. Why not wait and see what is proposed before collectively losing our minds?

Not sure why but, his posts always remind me of John Stewart's coverage of Giuliani's presidential campaign and brings a smile to my face. I actually was thoroughly disappointed Mirvish wasn't mentioned.

Foster & Partners is a design factory. The tower will have quality but I think people maybe setting themselves up for disappointment. Firm lost a lot of its pizazz when Shuttleworth split. Dancey has led all three of the Canadian projects too.
 
I truly don't understand this constant, unfounded despise for the planning department in this city.. I've gone through it a couple times before, but people for some reason seem to think that anything the planners touch will turn to crap, while if anything the opposite is true.. The planning department is far from "evil" as it is suggested.
 
But, dude, the billowing cloud is gone and that rests solely on planners shoulders. This forum isn't about costs and other boring stuff afterall.
 
...I've gone through it a couple times before, but people for some reason seem to think that anything the planners touch will turn to crap, while if anything the opposite is true.. The planning department is far from "evil" as it is suggested.

The "opposite of crap" would seem to be somewhat of an opaque concept given what gets built in Toronto. I have never blamed the planning department for poor building quality or unimaginative designs, but I doubt most people would say everything they have touched is the "opposite of crap." This isn't pedantism but a search for clarity. You probably just overreacted to undue criticism of the department. That's understandable.

What's also understandable, though, is people being annoyed with the planning department when it comes to some bigger projects. Given it is they who implement the planning policies that restrict growth downtown for arbitrary reasons-such as wanting to sculpt the shape of the skyline emerging around Yonge and Bloor-it is not hard to see why people might conflate retrograde outcomes in that respect with poor outcomes as judged by other measures. The former being a result of the City and the latter owing primarily to other factors. Again, I agree that to the extent the planning department enforces their mandate any criticism on those grounds is misplaced. Just because individual members are enforcing the policy of the luddites does not mean the individuals control the process.
 
Last edited:
To their planning credit I think the sculpting of the sky line is a good thing, from most places in the city you get a nice view of a cluster of buildings with an apex. I think that's good. It does frustrate me when they decrease proposed heights especially in areas that already have a lot of high rises. I am amongst those hoping for super talls, but if they are plunked just anywhere things will look all willy nilly.
I think architects and developers need to try pushing more boundaries. It is not one group at fault.
But hey, we should be damn thankful anything is getting built at all. Many cities would love to experience this sort of growth.
That being said I will always hope for taller and more colourful personally.
 
To their planning credit I think the sculpting of the sky line is a good thing, from most places in the city you get a nice view of a cluster of buildings with an apex. I think that's good... I am amongst those hoping for super talls, but if they are plunked just anywhere things will look all willy nilly.

I know others feel that way too. I am just worried about placing constraints on the city's growth, especially downtown, because the planners think something will look neat. This could very easily limit potential growth and densities which I see as crucial to Toronto's success. Would it be so terrible if you had an Aura height building on south-east the corner of Church and Bloor, for example? I won't say there couldn't be other reasons not to have one that height there let's just not make sculpting the skyline one of them.

Or, stjames2queenwest, would you really oppose such a proposal for that reason alone? I'm not arguing just curious how deeply held your conviction is on this point.
 
Last edited:
20+ floor area ratios are not crucial to Toronto's future growth. In fact, too much of these sort of densities in the wrong places could actually hinder growth. SE Corner is a fair bit smaller than the Aura site.
 
Last edited:

Back
Top