Toronto West Don Lands: Blocks 17 & 26 | 141m | 43s | Aspen Ridge | Core Architects

Ward8 said:
This is very well done. The mid-block connections are great and the scale seems appropriate. My only two nit picks would be that, with the ample public space in the immediate area, I don't see the need for that corner plaza. And I bet there is a way to better animate the blank facade of the smaller foundry building.
Click to expand...

There is public space, but the Plaza as proposed here is still beautiful. And there is value in maintaining it if the site is designed to become a destination, especially if it's mixed used as a music venue or farmers market. The design of the building over top ensures that the area also is used well.

Anyways, I doubt this proposal resembles what will eventually get built, especially with the province behaving like it is.
 
lomeri said:
There is public space, but the Plaza as proposed here is still beautiful. And there is value in maintaining it if the site is designed to become a destination, especially if it's mixed used as a music venue or farmers market. The design of the building over top ensures that the area also is used well.

Anyways, I doubt this proposal resembles what will eventually get built, especially with the province behaving like it is.
Click to expand...
You are almost certainly right that we will never see anything exactly like this but to be fair, this (and the proposal for a performing arts space being suggested by IRCPPA) are essentially renderings to show what is possible. here and demonstrate that you can have heritage and housing and community space together.

As the Friends of the Foundry say in their daily email this evening: "It's important to remember that this is a demonstration, not a proposal! Its purpose is to stimulate ideas, to provoke discussion, and to shift the public conversation toward future possibilities."
 
Last edited:
Such a beautiful project. Canada needs to give some kind of award to KPMB. Their calibre of designing is amazing 👏. 9 out of 10 of their projects r flawless. 🐐
 
Urban Strategies getting involved too:

FoundryConcepts_UrbanStrategies_Page_02-scaled.jpg


FoundryConcepts_UrbanStrategies_Page_04-scaled.jpg


FoundryConcepts_UrbanStrategies_Page_05-scaled.jpg


FoundryConcepts_UrbanStrategies_Page_06-scaled.jpg

FoundryConcepts_UrbanStrategies_Page_09.jpg


FoundryConcepts_UrbanStrategies_Page_11-scaled.jpg


FoundryConcepts_UrbanStrategies_Page_15-scaled.jpg


FoundryConcepts_UrbanStrategies_Page_16-scaled.jpg
FoundryConcepts_UrbanStrategies_Page_21-scaled.jpg


FoundryConcepts_UrbanStrategies_Page_24-scaled.jpg
FoundryConcepts_UrbanStrategies_Page_26-scaled.jpg


Source

FoundryConcepts_UrbanStrategies_Page_12.jpg


FoundryConcepts_UrbanStrategies_Page_17-scaled.jpg


FoundryConcepts_UrbanStrategies_Page_25-scaled.jpg
 
It is good to note that the KPMB doesn't meet the density target. That said, the Urban Strategies versions look like a crammed-in, unimaginative developer's wet dream. The "faked architecture" isn't doing their options any favours either, I think a blank massing would be easier to read and more flattering to the ideas, instead of random flourishes/over-articulation for no purpose. I find their massings incomprehensible and it just looks like nothing "breathes". There is no clear hierarchy. Option 2 seems to have the most clear east-west connection through the site and that seems to dictate the plan but then I look at the other drawings for it and I'm not so sure.

Sorry to pop off, but I just can't remember the last time I saw even a basic massing scheme from Urban Strategies that was compelling and I find it mind-numbing. Smh.
 
Well they're not architects. To expect them to deliver a beautiful building(s) would be akin to expecting KPMB to deliver on all of the planning minutiae...

Important to remember too that from what I've seen, the KPMB one involved the Friends of the Foundry folks (hence the lower density) whereas US / NBLC version did not (hence the higher density). I'd take the aesthetic of the first with the planning of the second, if it were up to me.
 
everydayhim said:
just because you can go to an all-you-can-eat buffet, does not mean you should consume all that you can truly eat..
Click to expand...

But... doesn't everyone consume all that they can eat? Who goes to all you can eat and doesn't leave feeling sickly full?!
 
AlexBozikovic said:
The USI proposals deliver the program and square footage that the MZO calls for. The KPMB one, which I agree is beautiful, does not.
Click to expand...

Density is not the end goal of life and the MZO should definitely not be the yardstick.
 
Last edited:
mcornett said:
Density is not the end goal of life and the MZO should definitely not be the yardstick.
Click to expand...

I think it's about being realistic. I don't think it's reasonable to expect that the inevitable density is going to be much less than the MZO. I'd much rather the focus of advocates be on the quality of the pedestrian realm, community assets, and integration of historic buildings on the site. Those are arguments that are rhetorical wins. "Yes And" is more convincing than "No".
 
lomeri said:
I think it's about being realistic. I don't think it's reasonable to expect that the inevitable density is going to be much less than the MZO. I'd much rather the focus of advocates be on the quality of the pedestrian realm, community assets, and integration of historic buildings on the site. Those are arguments that are rhetorical wins. "Yes And" is more convincing than "No".
Click to expand...
Yes, let’s densify, but the MZO is unrealistically dense. It was premised on demolishing the entire complex. Now we’re trying to cram three giant towers on to what is essentially a side street in order to satisfy the province’s arbitrary, developer appeasing goal. And you can see the results in the Urban Strategies massings, which are... bad. I think the KPMB model is a great example of what should happen to make the public space useful while allowing for housing.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top