Canadian City Proposals

[TorontoDrew]

Originally Posted by LeftCoaster

For us non-locals can you remind us of what that one is?

It's this one though I'm not sure if this is the final design. Nothing fancy but decent.

Posted on: cdn.newhomelistingservice.com

[905er]

Originally Posted by Innsertnamehere

319 Jarvis

That's disappointing

[koops65]

I see 52 storeys there... and I like the grid pattern. That one will need a database entry for sure. Reminds me of a bigger version of the Delta Hotel...

[dleung]

Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper

Of course, you take my European experience to the Nth degree as with everything else. Why do you always view everything as either black or white?

Again. IMO, Height should reflect the density. Towers throwing on podiums has little appeal to me and this sort of excessive planning exercise only encourages this form of development further. I just feel planners in Vancouver are trying even harder to satisfy all typologies with one homogeneous look.

I'm trying to save you from embarassment . You know you troll. Why are you continuing that you don't and just drop the matter.

Trolling is repeating the same falsehoods after someone corrects you. Again, there's no podium in the proposal you're complaining about, nor in the proposal I posted before that. Neither of them are anything close to the "one homogenous look". lol are you a robot?

[Gresto]

Originally Posted by GeneralLee(Toronto )

Those Toronto examples to me are just tacky reno's that do no favours to the housing market and are honestly somewhat selfish looking.

Yeah, but they're not renos, which are excusable. They're complete teardowns, and to me represent the worst of this throwaway culture.
Hundreds of thousands of poor people in Toronto, the TCHC can't afford the upkeep for its decrepit buildings, hundreds of homeless on the streets, and over here greedy rats are demolishing perfectly serviceable houses to make domiciles for pampered dahlings who wouldn't deign to live in anything under 3000 sq. ft. It's a skewed value system.

[GeneralLea]

Originally Posted by Gresto

Yeah, but they're not renos, which are excusable. They're complete teardowns, and to me represent the worst of this throwaway culture.
Hundreds of thousands of poor people in Toronto, the TCHC can't afford the upkeep for its decrepit buildings, hundreds of homeless on the streets, and over here greedy rats are demolishing perfectly serviceable houses to make domiciles for pampered dahlings who wouldn't deign to live in anything under 3000 sq. ft. It's a skewed value system.

Apologies, I meant some are renos.

[BretttheRiderFan]

Very Bank of China Tower-esque

[dleung]

More like Hearst Tower glued onto the side of a box with a meaningless podium. Also if the tower near Carlton couldn't get approved because of shadows over Allan Gardens, this one will have no chance. The OMB doesn't do logic though, so anything is possible.

[koops65]

I'm not certain which tower you're referring to, but 319 Jarvis looks far enough away to be borderline. The church might get shadows mid-afternoon, but I doubt the actual gardens will get any shadows at all...

[isaidso]

Originally Posted by koops65

The church might get shadows mid-afternoon, but I doubt the actual gardens will get any shadows at all...

That's too bad.

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally Posted by Gresto

Yeah, but they're not renos, which are excusable. They're complete teardowns, and to me represent the worst of this throwaway culture.
Hundreds of thousands of poor people in Toronto, the TCHC can't afford the upkeep for its decrepit buildings, hundreds of homeless on the streets, and over here greedy rats are demolishing perfectly serviceable houses to make domiciles for pampered dahlings who wouldn't deign to live in anything under 3000 sq. ft. It's a skewed value system.

They don't all look like teardowns. I don't quite get the logic of renos are excusable while teardowns are not? Either can be extremely wasteful.

It's not the guy building his dream house responsibility for the mismanagement of non market housing in Toronto. Some of these homeowners are trust fund babies wasting away their inheritance but, there's also alot of hard working stiffs that pay more than their share of dues for the entitled elites running corporate Canada and the poor through high taxation building these trophies. Perfectly serviceable is a stretch. Most of these houses are long over due for a full electrical/mechanical overhaul.

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally Posted by koops65

I'm not certain which tower you're referring to, but 319 Jarvis looks far enough away to be borderline. The church might get shadows mid-afternoon, but I doubt the actual gardens will get any shadows at all...

This one is just as awful as the Adelaide one. I hope it casts long shadows although the density (lot coverage looks extreme for 50 storey) should kill it anyways.

[Beedok]

I don't get the hate for Podiums, they let you get a solid streetwall, tall buildings, and still leave space for views and light.

[yaletown_fella]

319 Jarvis looks like a lazily slapped together collage of contemporary architecture trends.

[GeneralLea]

Originally Posted by Beedok

I don't get the hate for Podiums, they let you get a solid streetwall, tall buildings, and still leave space for views and light.

One of the problems with podiums is that a lot of the time it's clumsily done... although I do agree with you if it's done in such a way to allow the things that you've stated.
If you see something like the phased development of Mississauga's Parkside Village, it's actually doing a service for the area with a strong streetwall and retail along the street, although you also got towers in Mississauga with pretty poorly designed podiums:
(Edge Towers, not u/c yet but likely will be in next few months)

If you've seen as well in Toronto with the deo-stick that is 4800 Yonge, although the render is a bit old, the tower and podium combination was TERRIBLE. It did no justice for what's supposed to be a fairly major centre of North York. Another example is some of the odd job towers in Scarborough, like the development just north of the highway 401......it's not a great podium.

As a final closing point, I do agree, podiums aren't a bad aspect for city building, but it really depends how well they're designed and how they mesh with the existing urban or not so urban landscape of the area.

[Coldrsx]

Originally Posted by TorontoDrew

It's this one though I'm not sure if this is the final design. Nothing fancy but decent.

Posted on: cdn.newhomelistingservice.com

Such a key lot to get developed for our downtown and 3rd or 4th tallest residential for the city.

[HomeInMyShoes]

^Key lot indeed. That site dodged a huge bullet.

[O-tacular]

Originally Posted by Innsertnamehere

319 Jarvis

Is that a joke? It looks like they just photoshopped Hearst onto the side of a standard Toronto condo building.

Edit: Just noticed the context with tiny houses beside it. Wow what a pink elephant.

[caltrane74]

This will not be approved.

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally Posted by Beedok

I don't get the hate for Podiums, they let you get a solid streetwall, tall buildings, and still leave space for views and light.

When I say podium I mean a comparably large afterthought of an addition slapped under a tower's footprint to fill in the voids. I don't need tall buildings if the density doesn't ask for it. I'd much rather have a consistent built form that reflects the density.

Space for views and light penetration can be also achieved through stepbacks as towers rise from its base. Manhattan 101.