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

gristle said:
Bureaucracy? No.

What process would you suggest?
Click to expand...

Short answer: Design Review Panel
Long:
Don't get me wrong, I'm no libertarian. I just think keeping a project on hold and the cost of all the hearings seems a bit wasted to lop off 3 storied from a 50 story proposal.
It makes me cringe when I think of the current system in this town where elected officials make the decisions regardless of not being educated in urban design or not. Most political campaigns seems to sell everything but and voters don't seem to care. I know most people on this forum would, but unfortunately that's not enough. I still have some hope for the Design Review Panel (which is the process I would suggest even though, yes, it's a form of bureaucracy) but I am a bit worried that Ford won't see the merits and may see it as a car on the gravy train. Luckily the architects in this town are getting a bit better but still, I have a bad feeling if Ford and Co. are making city building decisions based on gut feeling or if it will make or save money in the short term.
 
I'd like to see a design review panel as well, but that would not automatically mean that any tower would go up as proposed. In fact, such a panel might be even more restrictive in some instances - particularly when adhering to secondary plans.

About the elected official, to which official are you referring to? The project was rejected at committee of adjustments and given an okay by the OMB. Neither of those panels are elected.

As for architects, they tend to take many of their marching orders from developers (who are putting up the money).
 
TheatreParkRooftop.jpg


Theatre Park, as you know, is launching shortly. The building, now approved at 47 storeys, has had some changes since its first incarnation, and now sports a beefed-up podium. The park plan in front is now more fully formed, and includes a restaurant at the base of the tower behind a reflecting pool. No doubt the restaurant will be mobbed prior to the nightly shows at the Royal Alex next door...

TheatreParkForecourt750.jpg


TheatreParkPodiumGlass.jpg


TheatreParkTower.jpg
 
Spectacular. The integrity of the original design has been maintained. And I do like the way it's pulled back from the street wall, giving rise to the little parkette/forecourt; an almost Modernist gesture. Love it.
 
Last edited:
I still can't believe OMB approved this 47 storey proposal right in middle of the King Street heritage strip with generally 6 storey buildings ... while the cross ribbon effect is nice, it is the standard aA box once again
 
This is a building all the RICH RITZ/SHANGRI LA PEEPS and Tourist alike will love and can admire. This will make Metro Hall Park a destination in Toronto...

Ritz, Roy Thomson Hall, CN Tower, TIFF.. Royal Alex,

Now I bet that park gets a major privately financed renovation. (kinda like Dundas Square)
 
I'm ambivalent about this design. On the one hand, it is certainly visually arresting. But on the other hand, the visually interesting elements are all just surface additions, and have nothing to do with the body of the building itself, which is in the end just another glass box. The distinctive design elements are in no way integral to the structure, unlike Scotia, Absolute World, Exhibit, the ROM Crystal, Waterlink at Pier 27, L, or even Trump -- here they are merely tacked on additions. That can work, of course, and that's essentially what One Bloor is, but it just seems less than ambitious, a tarting up of a boring building with a cheap surface treatment.
 
I like the way the strong horizontal lines of the balconies resolve themselves in the criss-cross pattern of the east and west sides... and then continues to the roofline where it essentially unravels. Nice.

The design is elegant and its modern lines will be a nice contrast to the older and more ornate heritage buildings around it.

Not sure I love the idea of a plaza here but admit that it will function well for theatre patrons.
 
My personal bias is that I am not against a box (or boring box, or cheap box, or whatever compound noun you need to create) as long as there is some nod to intelligent design in its execution. Not every site can be an Absolute World or a Pier 27 or an L Tower: there is often not the space available (as is certainly the case here), or market conditions may prevent a developer from spending so much on radical construction methods. Boxes are much easier for purchasers to furnish, by the way.

What I find 'audacious' (as per the advertising) about this design is that the purity of the unadorned modernist box here is humourously being turned on its head with adornments, while still managing to maintain its integrity. While I don't believe they'll be using precast to create the bands (I am expecting aluminum), I believe the bands play with the notion that the horizontal strips on many buildings which appear at every floor are structural, when they too are normally decorative: this building makes no bones about that fact.

So, you can call this a surface treatment if you want, but cheap? Who knows? It's also a statement, and with so many buildings in this city that make no statement at all, three cheers for this exclamation point.

42
 
I could have posted this against 1 Bloor or a few other recent proposals. But what is the consensus for market demand for all these units? I assume a percentage of these downtown condo's are for investment/rental purposes. Not sure what the current vacancy rate is amongs rentals but there would have to be a limit at some point. Also, obviously rates can only go up from here (cross fingers nothing really bad happens). So I guess the question is - will a few of these proposals not come to fruition and if so which? Based on the location alone of this proposal, I would think it would sell well.
 
interchange42 said:
My personal bias is that I am not against a box (or boring box, or cheap box, or whatever compound noun you need to create) as long as there is some nod to intelligent design in its execution. Not every site can be an Absolute World or a Pier 27 or an L Tower: there is often not the space available (as is certainly the case here), or market conditions may prevent a developer from spending so much on radical construction methods. Boxes are much easier for purchasers to furnish, by the way.

What I find 'audacious' (as per the advertising) about this design is that the purity of the unadorned modernist box here is humourously being turned on its head with adornments, while still managing to maintain its integrity. While I don't believe they'll be using precast to create the bands (I am expecting aluminum), I believe the bands play with the notion that the horizontal strips on many buildings which appear at every floor are structural, when they too are normally decorative: this building makes no bones about that fact.

So, you can call this a surface treatment if you want, but cheap? Who knows? It's also a statement, and with so many buildings in this city that make no statement at all, three cheers for this exclamation point.

42
Click to expand...

I don’t disagree with you entirely, however, there are very few examples where the finished building is as good as its render. If this one doesn’t work, it won’t work big time.
 
Whoa, cool! I just noticed this project and I'm pretty impressed. It looks interesting and it's great to see a non-superblock type project. The height doesn't particularly bother me in that location.
 
interchange42 said:
What I find 'audacious' (as per the advertising) about this design is that the purity of the unadorned modernist box here is humourously being turned on its head with adornments, while still managing to maintain its integrity. While I don't believe they'll be using precast to create the bands (I am expecting aluminum), I believe the bands play with the notion that the horizontal strips on many buildings which appear at every floor are structural, when they too are normally decorative: this building makes no bones about that fact.

So, you can call this a surface treatment if you want, but cheap? Who knows? It's also a statement, and with so many buildings in this city that make no statement at all, three cheers for this exclamation point.
Click to expand...

I don't disagree at all with your very insightful analysis. My ambivalence is more about the lack of ambition in the structural approach, which is not just a factor in this particular building, but which seems an exceedingly commonplace malady. But, as you say, not all buildings can be Scotia or Absolute World. As a finished building, if it does indeed live up to the render, this will be a welcome addition to the city.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top