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

arvelomcquaig said:
And a beautiful historic building was demolished for this? Makes me nauseous.

Is Yonge & Dundas seriously being intentionally planned to be the ugliest place on earth? Why do the standards there seem so much lower than everywhere else in the city?
Click to expand...

What a load from the unsalvagable, average, prewar warehouse being beautiful to Yonge & Dundas being the ugliest place on Earth.
 
At such a prominent, visible location too. To make things worse, I don't think there are any potential sites for re-development around it that could at least hide it in the future.

What's the point of the Design Review Panel again??
 
Towered said:
At such a prominent, visible location too. To make things worse, I don't think there are any potential sites for re-development around it that could at least hide it in the future.

What's the point of the Design Review Panel again??
Click to expand...

Well let's not forget that the DRP is voluntary. If I remember correctly, there weren't many people on this forum who were keen on making it obligatory either.
 
The final site specific by-law has this at 122.5m inclusive of mechanical.

LINK

AlvinofDiaspar said:
This is the second miss by D+S of late, considering how High Park turned out. Hey on the bright side, Yonge and Dundas can be the place for awful, sub-third world class architecture - 10 Dundas, Eaton Centre thingamajig, etc.

AoD
Click to expand...

Also, I think it's time to stop excusing DSAI here - they're listed as having submitted drawings and are therefore responsible for what treatment is applied to which surface. What's more, it's not their second recent fail, it's their third. The Shiplake thing up on Davisville is truly turning out to be a giant pile of garbage.
 
Nor is Daniels HighPark. This one is in a league of its own. I'm also frustrated that everyone's focusing solely on the architect and not the developer who hold the purse strings. The buck stops at the developer.

Meanwhile, in regards to the Design Review Panel, this rezoning application was submitted in January of 2007, predating the panel. Had it gone to the panel, however, my experience from attending the meetings of late is that they don't spend a particularly large amount of time on the building envelop above the ground realm. Maybe that's because nothing quite so terrible has come before them lately.

42
 
haha. I don't mind bad building, but please be bad and tacky in the controversial, flamboyant, or bizarre way, not in an extra conservative, boring and forgettable way like this!
I hope they will replace the salmon wall with a huge mural, let it be Jesus or Astro Boy I don't care.
 
interchange42 said:
Nor is Daniels HighPark. This one is in a league of its own. I'm also frustrated that everyone's focusing solely on the architect and not the developer who hold the purse strings. The buck stops at the developer.

Meanwhile, in regards to the Design Review Panel, this rezoning application was submitted in January of 2007, predating the panel. Had it gone to the panel, however, my experience from attending the meetings of late is that they don't spend a particularly large amount of time on the building envelop above the ground realm. Maybe that's because nothing quite so terrible has come before them lately.

42
Click to expand...

Agreed but I think the frustration comes from the fact that we all know DSAI is capable of so much more. It's not Kirkor or G+C we're talking about here. Yet these three recent works, each from a different developer and all with different budgets, just seem like lazy, poor efforts. I think the folks at DSAI are not an untalented bunch - but when the expectations are elevated because the firm's track record is that much more solid, each miss just seems that much more off-putting.
 
Last edited:
We have seen other talented architectural firms deliver duds as well, and what I am trying to say is that the success of a project ultimately comes down to developers committing to a budget that ensures a certain quality… instead of a certain lack of quality. If you're building an opera house and want an onyx-filled lobby, Diamond Schmitt can only give that to you if you're willing to pay what the onyx costs. If you're looking for savings on the exterior with spandrel-and-mullion window wall and aren't willing to pay for better materials, the architect is stuck with delivering what you are willing to shell out for.

42
 
You're right on every point. My frustration is that if you can't afford the Mariinsky, as Toronto wasn't, DSAI pride themselves on having been able to deliver the far-cheaper Four Seasons in a way that didn't overtly compromise the quality of the finished product. I understand that cultural budgets allow for greater creativity in finding these savings but if I have to hear Jack and Don harp on about how great they are at finding ways to craft a silk purse out of a sow's ear, is it too much to ask that they extend that talent across the entire typological breadth of their portfolio?
 
The design has changed a fair bit since it was first submitted. That design may not have been popular but, it was superior to this. That said, the revised Shiplake plan looks much worse than this.

There's not much anyone can do with a cheap, 60% spandrel window wall and a developer that like this colour combination. Those that can would just walk away.
 
Last edited:
Okay then ... Defence if you prefer.

This building is garbage. I'm willing to give DSAI a pass on this one and place blame on P+S. I also find placing blame is unfair of me given their insurmountable position to design a quality building with what they have been given. If that's a tough sell to UT forumers than so be it. I'm not here to be a salesman.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top