Project Essentials / dataBase – detailed project information, floor plans, renderings
Projects & Construction Thread
Wynford Green 
844 Don Mills Road, Toronto
Developer: Diamond Corp, Lifetime Developments, Context Development


Wynford Green | 135m | 44s | Diamond Corp | Sweeny &Co

interchange42

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
21,397
Likes
14,362
Location
by the Humber
#92
Now that the DRP have told them they're missing mid-rise buildings to transition from the high-rise blocks to the low-rise ones, I bet they'll be looking for density increases (but not the height reductions to to the high-rises which the DRP also suggested).

42
 

salsa

Senior Member
Joined
Sep 27, 2013
Messages
7,714
Likes
6,232
Location
North York
#93
I spend some time exploring the site as it exists today...



Part 1: 844 Don Mills Rd

This is a massive building surrounded by vast amounts of surface parking. The following two entrance blocks from the original building will be retained and relocated somewhere within the area.

IMG_2233.JPG


IMG_2230.JPG





Everything else will be demolished.

IMG_2231.JPG


IMG_2232.JPG


IMG_2244.JPG


IMG_2238.JPG


IMG_2239.JPG


IMG_2241.JPG
 

Attachments

Last edited:

salsa

Senior Member
Joined
Sep 27, 2013
Messages
7,714
Likes
6,232
Location
North York
#94
Part 2: 1150 Eglinton Ave E

This building on the other hand, I really like. I'm gonna miss it.


IMG_2258.JPG


IMG_2257.JPG


IMG_2253.JPG


IMG_2248.JPG


IMG_2249.JPG


IMG_2250.JPG


IMG_2254.JPG






The plan is to retain two small portions of it. The westernmost part will be reused as a ravine activity centre. The eastern portion will become the base podium of a new residential building. Which is nice, but I wish they planned to preserve more of it.

Screen Shot 2017-04-16 at 12.24.49 AM.png


Screen Shot 2017-04-16 at 12.22.33 AM.png
 

Attachments

jje1000

Senior Member
Joined
May 19, 2007
Messages
3,506
Likes
1,061
#95
The heritage preservation aspect is definitely underwhelming- they should rebuild one of the facades of the IBM building for the community center (lots of wallspace there), and retain more of the Parkin building's facade since it is a building that relies more on rhythm and repetition than facade ornamentation.

Currently you lose that by preserving only one piece of the Parkin building, since it no longer works as a unified structure. Maybe a reproduced free-standing 'ghost' facade or screen of the south, valley-facing elevations might work?
 

interchange42

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
21,397
Likes
14,362
Location
by the Humber
#96
There's also been the criticism here of the missing middle: there are no mid-rises here, it's all low or high. Introducing some mid-rises might allow the retention and re-use or the re-construction of some exiting building facades as potions of mid-rise podiums.

42
 
Joined
Mar 8, 2010
Messages
12,115
Likes
5,449
Location
Hipsterville
#99
A transition in built form could be desirable, yes, but at the end of the day the final product delivered to end buyers in a midrise isn't all that different than a tower. Buyers are going to be living in a 650 square foot apartment regardless. My understanding is that the traditional use of the term "missing middle" references stacked towns, duplexes, etc., a sort of density that has been generally missing in Toronto. These built forms usually deliver a larger product for final purchasers.
 

interchange42

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
21,397
Likes
14,362
Location
by the Humber
A transition in built form could be desirable, yes, but at the end of the day the final product delivered to end buyers in a midrise isn't all that different than a tower. Buyers are going to be living in a 650 square foot apartment regardless. My understanding is that the traditional use of the term "missing middle" references stacked towns, duplexes, etc., a sort of density that has been generally missing in Toronto. These built forms usually deliver a larger product for final purchasers.
I'm thinking about it in terms of the missing building typology, and in terms of the moderately high density it would bring to parts of the site. The moderately larger units are taken care of here through the blocks of towns already.

42
 

Tuscani01

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 22, 2007
Messages
4,954
Likes
1,132
I'm thinking about it in terms of the missing building typology, and in terms of the moderately high density it would bring to parts of the site. The moderately larger units are taken care of here through the blocks of towns already.

42
Missing middle would be the wrong analogy then, as the housing type that defines the missing middle is much closer to single family housing than midrise buildings.

You're simply advocating for more midrise, which in itself is something which many probably agree with.
 

interchange42

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
21,397
Likes
14,362
Location
by the Humber
Well, let's say the missing mid-rise then. Is there any reason that mid-rises couldn't contain larger suites, similar in size to what you might get in townhomes? Would it be the amenity space required in mid-rises that are not required for townhomes that might make them more expensive? If that is the only problem, then maybe we need to rethink the formula by which amenity space is calculated be rethought. The larger the suite per person living in it, the less necessary amenity space becomes.

42
 

Top