Toronto Velocity at the Square | 122.52m | 40s | HNR | P + S / IBI

I can't think of anything more "out of context" than using limestone to clad a building that's within spitting distance of Dundas Square. Anyone who is "insulted" by the sight of concrete in this location, and sees it as "ignorance of its context", is obviously living in the wrong city.
 
I never said the use of concrete is the insult.

I am not sure why you misrepresent so many of other people's posts to fit your own arguments.
 
If you check your post, you'll see that you said that "Walls of precast is ( sic ) simply insulting and an ignorance of its context".

Disowning your own comments fools nobody but yourself, clearly.
 
MetroMan said:
^ Except maybe they know that the HNR building can -- in the future -- apply to add height to their tower which will completely cover this building. Also, there's a municipal rule about having windows face other property lines.
Click to expand...
That's an interesting rule that is largely ignored, I suppose. I can count dozens of condos next to other condos off the top of my head that are built with windows and balconies within jumping distance of each other.
 
The complaint, clearly by all who have taken issue with this design, is the amount of precast. Nobody complained about the precast in the first rendering (as there is so little, and it is broken up vertically). I find it hard to believe that that was not clear after all the posts.
 
That's an interesting rule that is largely ignored, I suppose. I can count dozens of condos next to other condos off the top of my head that are built with windows and balconies within jumping distance of each other.
Click to expand...

The rule is you can't put windows right at the property line. That rule is not being ignored. There's no rule about buildings set back from the property line having windows facing another property.
 
Ahhhh, I see. So, if they applied a set back from the property line, they actually could squeeze in a lot more Square-facing units. I really don't see the HNR building adding more height to its existing foundation without being torn down and facade-ized.
 
grey said:
Ahhhh, I see. So, if they applied a set back from the property line, they actually could squeeze in a lot more Square-facing units. I really don't see the HNR building adding more height to its existing foundation without being torn down and facade-ized.
Click to expand...

That doesn't matter, the building code is what matters and windows can't be on the property line.
 
Did anybody ever stop to think that these blank walls may be in place for future advertisement and sinage? If done well it could look pretty impressive albeit tacky.
 
Setbacks are fine to allow for windows. Some buildings build right up to the property line with a vertical setback higher up or if the windows are sunken in. A good recent example is Element at Front and Peter. Boring, blank, precast walls at the ends, but higher up it's setback and there are windows sunken in as well.
 
Urban Shocker said:
Bazis, surely, would demand something visually loud and vulgar if they were developing this site.

P.End makes some observations but doesn't tell us how much taller - and why? - this building needs to be in order to satisfy his demand for height. It looks like it's about 45 storeys at the moment. And what's his basis for decreeing the present height to be a design flaw? I doubt that it will be any more of a focal point for the square than any number of surrounding buildings, though extra height would make it so. And what are the unstated ambitions that he sets for the design? None of the construction faults he sees in structures actually built around town can be ascribed to this tower, since it hasn't been built yet. There are preconceptions and unexplained assumptions in his arguments.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry I should have been more clear in my post.

My problem was not with the height - that aspect is fine. As you note it should be an exciting 45 stories (130-145m?!). The issue I was stressing was the building's lack of enthusiasm. The damn thing isn't even exciting enough to hold one's attention, let alone support the lofty ambitions of the Dundas Square/Heart of Toronto project. Such a prominent site clearly deserves something more assertive and Diamond has (once again) given us a pup. This is little more than a glorified Scarborough slab.

Without sounding sycophantic I have always held your opinions in high esteem Shocker, and while this exchange obviously won't change that, I find your defense of this clearly out-of-context structure troubling. Dundas Square is the highly, if not mistakenly, touted 'Heart of Toronto' and if this is all we can muster then clearly something is missing.

Your defense of open space is just but you fail to remind us that the way to enhance such space is to emphasize the level of care and detail. You rightly note that this building has not been constructed or even planned yet so a discussion of material uses is probably inappropriate. There are however, countless examples of underwhelming design and construction to support my supposed "preconceptions and unexplained assumptions," something you well know.
 
ProjectEnd: What exactly are the "lofty ambitions" of Dundas Square that you claim this building is supposed to play a supporting role in? I think caltrane hits the nail on the head with his most recent post on that thread when he says about the Square, "yay!! ..lots of pretty lights." Given the design of the tower, I think it actually asserts itself rather sensibly in the face of the massive visual clutter that surrounds and defines the Square.
 
No, you just like it because it was designed by Diamond and Schmitt. If the same thing were designed by some no-name architecture firm, you would not be so quick to heap wheelbarrows full of praise upon it.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top