Toronto Theatre Park | 156.96m | 47s | Lamb Dev Corp | a—A

If they change the podium to brick and add more historian look to it, would really add to both the building and street scape looks.

As for the wrapping, a lot better than plain looking.

Another though is doing a small step back at the 4 level to take away the shear look. Otherwise, bring it on and add a few more floors.
 
Please no brick or historical accents. If you want to accentuate the theatre, let its materials stand alone. Imitating anything along that stretch of King is wrong. The design is perfectly fine, in fact, we need more of this (albeit minimal) pushing of the envelope style. Why do we always have to scale back to what's safe and mediocre? In the immediate vicinity is Shangri La and the Ritz, which are fairly plain, but elegant in their simplicity - can we break up the monotony? This better win at OMB.
 
Last edited:
for easy reference...

4399620367_64fb3a4377_o.jpg
 
This rendering does the design more justice than the one above.
 

Attachments

  • 684256.jpg
    684256.jpg
    35.1 KB · Views: 402
It looks so offensively out of context in that (hand-drawn) render that it looks absolutely magnificent and awe-inspiring. It commands serious attention for that fact alone...not to mention the amazingly beautiful design. It's quite jarring. I like it. Yes, right in that lot.
 
I'd never believed this day would come but ... maybe this would be nicer if it was built as is (in terms of the design) but half the height?

The sites around it probably have little potential for development in a similar manner correct? If they do maybe it's okay.
 
Putting height restrictions on buildings (while perhaps correct from the point of view of architectural continuity and pedestrian respect) is not viable anymore. It's not even a matter of density, necessarily. Height is sexy. I agree that having a building of this height wedged in here is kind of awkward, but this seems to be the way Toronto will look in the years to come. Strange? Offensive? Maybe, but this is probably the way a lot of cities will look. Besides, King, Queen, John et al. are all being invaded by towers (hello Lightbox).

All that ballyhoo aside, I think this is a very attractive tower.
 
Last edited:
Great design, although only a rendering. The setback off King is a problem, so is the height. Even if they chopped the height in half it would still look out of place along this stretch. I'd say approve the project on condition that the developer builds a mid-sized live theatre venue which integrates with the design of the condo above, bring it forward and then let them have the height. This is the theatre district after all, with not a lot of theatres.
 
The rendering showcasing just how tall it really is just says it all. Pretty, but totally out of context. At least the Lightbox serves a function in improving TIFF and the city.
 
from today's National Post.....

City Planners Oppose King West Tower


Prominent Toronto architect Peter Clewes and condo king Brad J. Lamb are facing off with city planners who oppose building a 45-storey tower in the heart of the theatre district.

Mr. Lamb, a prolific salesman turned developer, believes the soaring structure will be a jewel in Toronto's high-rise crown. He and Mr. Clewes of architectsAlliance have teamed up with Niche Development, HarHay Construction Management to create 224 King St. W. with a public park on what is now a parking lot, next to the Royal Alexandra Theatre.

City staff, however, have given the project an "aggressive no," as local councillor Adam Vaughan puts it, because they say the height matches nothing in the neighbourhood and could set a precedent for demolishing historical buildings in the King-Spadina corridor.

"There's lots of good things about the project, the way it steps back from King Street and gives the Royal Alex a really dignified position on the street, the public square next to it," said Mr. Vaughan (Trinity-Spadina), who called the building beautiful. "I've talked to David Mirvish, and a place for the theatre crowd to gather and mill about is wonderful."

He said the difficulty is that the building will rise in a very tight space, between Duncan and Simcoe streets, and could present "significant consequences" for the heritage buildings in the neighbourhood.

"Once you hand out that kind of density on a site with heritage buildings, it makes economic sense to demolish," he said. And it sets a precedent on King Street, Mr. Vaughan argues, which will open the floodgates to requests for 40-storey plus condos "and it's impossible to say no."

Mr. Clewes-- of 18 Yorkville and Tip Top Lofts fame-- says as the city intensifies, King West is the next logical area to develop. Both he and Mr. Lamb consider the height a "non issue" because there are a stack of approved tall buildings in the vicinity, including the 66-storey Shangri-La at University and Richmond, a 38-storey building at John and Mercer streets, the Ritz Carlton and the 35-storey Boutique building where residents are currently moving in.

As for threatening the future of historical buildings, "our submission is that they are protected under heritage legislation," Mr. Clewes said.

"The idea was that when you're driving up to this property you wouldn't even notice it was a high rise. You would just think it was an open park and then towards the back of the lot is this high rise that doesn't even feel like it's on King Street, it feels like it's on Pearl Street," said Mr. Lamb, who said the public space in the front that would include a vertical wall of water that would freeze into an ice sculpture in the winter.

"It's a stunning beautiful piece of urban architecture from a park standpoint, and then there's no tower like this in the city," he said.

The plan is to build six suites per floor, with 9.5 to 10 foot ceilings, and prices ranging from $350,000 to $2.5-million, or about $600 a square foot.

"We want it to be the most beautiful residential piece of architecture in the city," said Mr. Lamb, who believes city planners are "wildly wrong" about what the building should be. "It would be a shame to build something in the order of 15 to 20 storeys, and fill the whole thing in like a big ugly block."

The proposal will be debated at next week's Toronto East York community council. The developers say they have already filed an appeal to the Ontario Municipal Board, in case council sides with the planners.
 
Last edited:
Vaughan sums it up perfectly, and Lamb and Clewes' rebuttal cites buildings that are not part of this little block between Duncan and Simcoe. And yes, they're protected heritage properties, but not all buildings in the district are.

That aside, I still want this to be built. I agree with the posters above - it's so ridiculous that it will work, but it better have the best materials ever...
 
Last edited:
grey said:
And yes, they're protected heritage properties, but not all buildings in the district are.
Click to expand...

Then designate them if theyre deserving of it. The correct response is not to turn down all proposals in the area as an alternative.

By the way, I second that the materials will need to be great to make it work.
 
Architecturefan said:
Then designate them if theyre deserving of it. The correct response is not to turn down all proposals in the area as an alternative.
Click to expand...

Okay, so any non-heritage buildings are open for sale to developers, who will try to tear them down and replace them with point towers. That will be their first and only proposal (or any proceeding proposals will just be variations based on the same tower proposal) because they can get OMB approval, which is probably even more likely when their proposal is laced with public realm improvements like this project (as if to admit, "yeah, our building is ridiciously contrary to the city plan, so here are a bunch of concessions before you even have to ask"). How does the Planning Department have any power to enforce their plan in this scenario?

Notice that Vaughan said allowing a tower like this will open a door that can't be closed. Lamb and Clewes' referred to the "stack" of approved towers as justification for their own. Totally proved Vaughan's point.

Then again, what do precedents matter when you're not even the one setting them?
 
Last edited:
While I generally like the design of this building, I find the height inappropriate, both in terms of precedent as Vaughan mentions, and also in terms of who it relates to neighbouring buildings. That being said, I fear that this will be approved as is by the OMB, largely due to those buildings mentioned by Clewes as precedent for height in this area. What I find to be somewhat disengenuous about Clewes' remark is that he is blindly (most likely purposefully) ignoring a lack of analagous immediate context between Theatre Park and the developments that he mentions as precedents.

Firstly, towers such as RBC, the Ritz-Carlton and Shangri La are much more respectful of their neighbours in terms of their massing. With the excpetion of Roy Thompson Hall, I do not think that there is a building shorter than 10 storeys on Wellington between University and Blue Jays Way. Therefore, while both RBC and Ritz-Carlton are certainly tall point towers, neighbouring buildings are not exactly low-rise development. Furthermore, visual continuity between RBC and Ritz-Carlton with other buildings on Wellington is acheived through significant podium elements and a significant setback in the case of the latter tower. Similarily, the Shangri-La site features a 15 storey modernist office tower to the north, a more contemporary 15 - 20 storey office tower to the south, and the hilton and another office tower across the street.

Although the intersections of adelaide and university, and wellington and simcoe are quite close to the location of Theatre Park, the situation on this stretch of king is markedly different. As can be seen from the rendereings, while the tower is set back from the street, there is no podium at all. While the addition of public space is laudable, from a design perspective, the lack of a continuation of the street wall through a podium of similar height to neighbouring properties is only further underlined by the void created by the setback of the tower. Furthermore, the immediate neighbours of Theatre park are no more than five stories tall. While the difference between a jump from 5 stories to 45 in this instance, and a jump from 10 sotires to 50 in the case of Ritz-Carlton does not seem that great, it is indeed significant. It is not only the predominant height of strucutres along this stretch of King that make it distinct from either Wellington or University, but also the lot size. Whereas Wellington and University feature farily large lot sizes, with developments occuring on lots formerly consisting of several distinct properties, the stretch of king where theatre park is located features relatively small lot sizes. A large lot size helps to mitigate differences in height between neighbouring strucutres through giving added horizontal heft to a building's massing. It is this heft (think the CBC building along wellington) that differentiates between a transistion from 10 to 50 stories and 5 to 45 stories.

In short, the immediate context bewteen the buildings cited by Clewes and Theatre park are disanalagous, and therefore the OMB should reject the proposal at its current height. Lucky for Clewes and Lamb though, they merely have to look further west down King to M5V. Another tower with a nice design, bad planning, and sure to be a precedent for this tower.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top