Canadian City Proposals

[ericmacm]

Commerce Court 3's latest revision. Same height as before, except this time, the design is boring.

[SpongeG]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

This is another yes and no scenario.

Between Victoria and Nanimo there is the Malahat mountain pass.

While not overly high (average elevation around 300 to 400 meters) it is still tricky topography to build around.

The more likely way the two could be connected if the population ever warrants it (IMO it already does, but we live in Canada...) road and rail connections could be built via bridges between the Saanich Peninsula and the Mill Bay / Cobble Hill / Duncan Bay area. From there the stretch north to Nanaimo could be urbanized fairly easily and uninterrupted.

As a side note the entire stretch of the eastern side of Vancouver Island from Nanaimo to Campbell River could easily host a major uninterrupted urban area into the multi-millions. It may be the easiest place in BC to do so after the Lower Mainland.

When I lived in the Cowichan valley getting to Victoria was never a problem, in the last two years they have upgraded a lot more of it with double lanes. I could get from Costco Victoria to Duncan in 30 minutes easily. Costco Nanaimo took a little longer than 45 minutes.

There are BC Transit buses that run from Duncan to Victoria in the mornings and back to Duncan in the evenings as a lot of people who work in Victoria live in The Cowichan Valley. I liked their Provence campaign from 2017.



I was surprised by how affordable it was there. You can find a one bedroom apartment for $700 still there in Cowichan Valley.

[Chadillaccc]

Ooof, yikes, it looks like 3 World Trade Centre, and not in a good way. What are they thinking with these designs? This will be the most visible office development in Toronto for possibly the next generation to come and this is what they keep coming up with? That is unfortunate. It's not the worst, but it is a location that deserves exceptional architectural attention which is not being given.

[niwell]

Not a fan of either proposals tbh, though I do actually think this is a significant improvement. The former was far too busy, ill-proportioned and lacked any real relation to the site. People get fooled by the "not a box" aspect but that really fell apart the closer you looked.

I do see what they are going for here in relation to Commerce Court West and I don't believe it's value engineering. Maybe it's just the rendering but it looks a bit too much like a high end condo to me - the corners look like balconies.

[kool maudit]

So now it's the New York Times Building instead of Two International Finance Centre.

Little originality plz.

[WhipperSnapper]

This is what the architect does. You don't hire Hariri Pontarini if you want originality. To their defense, originality is harder and harder to achieve.

[GeneralLea]

It looks like it'll be a better version of the New York Times...just by one of those renders it seems the taller of the buildings on the site will be facadomized, which is better than prior renditions.

[uzi]

Originally Posted by ericmacm

Commerce Court 3's latest revision. Same height as before, except this time, the design is boring.

it was 298.1m to roof and 350m to spire. now it is 299.5m to roof and 374m to spire.

[WhipperSnapper]

Roof height is basically the same and the spire is a flag pole. It's just height either way.

[isaidso]

Originally Posted by ericmacm

Commerce Court 3's latest revision. Same height as before, except this time, the design is boring.

But that's the look Toronto's going for. We have to live up to the Guardian's description of after all: prozac in city form.

[MonkeyRonin]

33 Sherbourne




http://urbantoronto.ca/news/2019/03/menkes-proposes-37-storey-tower-front-and-sherbourne



Panda Markham




http://urbantoronto.ca/news/2019/03/lifetime-presents-panda-markham-project-public-meeting



985 Woodbine


http://urbantoronto.ca/news/2019/03/two-building-mid-rise-proposed-beside-woodbine-subway-station

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally Posted by isaidso

But that's the look Toronto's going for. We have to live up to the Guardian's description of after all: prozac in city form.

That's somewhat dated. Boring would be raising the bar. We've dropped down to tacky. No wonder when mediocrity like the original CC3, Grid and, 88 Scott get high praise in our community for being "not a box".

[Hali87]

Originally Posted by MonkeyRonin

Panda Markham




http://urbantoronto.ca/news/2019/03/lifetime-presents-panda-markham-project-public-meeting

This one's interesting

[logan5]

This is truly the dark ages for architecture. Office towers and condo towers are so cookie cutter now they are hard to distinguish from one another. Office towers are now clad in sea-foam green glass.

[Nite]

Originally Posted by logan5

This is truly the dark ages for architecture. Office towers and condo towers are so cookie cutter now they are hard to distinguish from one another. Office towers are now clad in sea-foam green glass.

Asia seems to have no problem coming up with amazing structures. it's just that everything amazing proposed in Toronto gets cut down by the city, forcing developers to design a shorter tower that is still as profitable as the older taller structure which usually leads to a much worst design. Almost every cast i have seen where the city/design review gets their hands on a tower the result new design is worst.

here is an example at the corner of Bathurst and King

This


became this after the city got involved



"...The City took issue with several aspects of the initial building, the first being its height. The total height of the proposal has been reduced from 67 to 58 metres, which includes the mechanical penthouse but does not include the elevator and stair overruns, which extend the total height to 62.5 metres. It is now two storeys shorter, but despite the reduced height, the total number of residential units has increased from 240 to 251. The roof will also contain an accessible outdoor terrace as an amenity for the residents.

A second issue the City had with the former version was the massing. The continuous wrap-around balconies extended 2 metres into the required 5-metre setback from the heritage facade below, and created a bulky appearance that exceeded the City's recommended massing envelope. The new iteration maintains the 5-metre setback on the north and west facades, with smaller and discontinuous 2-metre balconies beginning on the eighth floor...."

http://urbantoronto.ca/news/2019/01/revised-663-king-west-recommended-rezoning-approval

this is a project in the heart of the city by the way and 67 m was too tall

[WhipperSnapper]

I would say buildings are far more distinguished from one another than previous previous booms. 1000s of cereal boxes were built in the 1960s and 1970s, for example. Developers have put emphasis on marketable designs that distinguish themselves. The problem is , 99% of them are pure cheese.

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally Posted by Nite

Asia seems to have no problem coming up with amazing structures. it's just that everything amazing proposed in Toronto gets cut down by the city, forcing developers to design a shorter tower that is still as profitable as the older taller structure which usually leads to a much worst design. Almost every cast i have seen where the city/design review gets their hands on a tower the result new design is worst.

here is an example at the corner of Bathurst and King

This


became this after the city got involved



"...The City took issue with several aspects of the initial building, the first being its height. The total height of the proposal has been reduced from 67 to 58 metres, which includes the mechanical penthouse but does not include the elevator and stair overruns, which extend the total height to 62.5 metres. It is now two storeys shorter, but despite the reduced height, the total number of residential units has increased from 240 to 251. The roof will also contain an accessible outdoor terrace as an amenity for the residents.

A second issue the City had with the former version was the massing. The continuous wrap-around balconies extended 2 metres into the required 5-metre setback from the heritage facade below, and created a bulky appearance that exceeded the City's recommended massing envelope. The new iteration maintains the 5-metre setback on the north and west facades, with smaller and discontinuous 2-metre balconies beginning on the eighth floor...."

http://urbantoronto.ca/news/2019/01/revised-663-king-west-recommended-rezoning-approval

this is a project in the heart of the city by the way and 67 m was too tall

I find the first design tacky. The waves are showy. There's zero attempt to compliment the existing facade.

The city isn't to blame for the developer value engineering the revised design or the original proposal being grossly overbuilt when it comes to coverage. It's not the responsibility of the city to baby developers when it comes to the financial viability of ill conceived developments. The city does hold responsibility for being too lenient instead of nipping it in the bud with these overbuilt proposals (the revised design is still a bad planning exercise) and not having current, clear, concise as of right zoning so developers know exactly how much they can build when pursuing development.

I would not be surprised if future generations look back at our era's cheap design thrills, faux heritage recognition, cheap finishes and, poor layouts in overbuilt communities lacking in amenities with much vile and contempt as we do with the modern era today.

[O-tacular]

Originally Posted by Nite

Asia seems to have no problem coming up with amazing structures. it's just that everything amazing proposed in Toronto gets cut down by the city, forcing developers to design a shorter tower that is still as profitable as the older taller structure which usually leads to a much worst design. Almost every cast i have seen where the city/design review gets their hands on a tower the result new design is worst.

here is an example at the corner of Bathurst and King

This


became this after the city got involved



"...The City took issue with several aspects of the initial building, the first being its height. The total height of the proposal has been reduced from 67 to 58 metres, which includes the mechanical penthouse but does not include the elevator and stair overruns, which extend the total height to 62.5 metres. It is now two storeys shorter, but despite the reduced height, the total number of residential units has increased from 240 to 251. The roof will also contain an accessible outdoor terrace as an amenity for the residents.

A second issue the City had with the former version was the massing. The continuous wrap-around balconies extended 2 metres into the required 5-metre setback from the heritage facade below, and created a bulky appearance that exceeded the City's recommended massing envelope. The new iteration maintains the 5-metre setback on the north and west facades, with smaller and discontinuous 2-metre balconies beginning on the eighth floor...."

http://urbantoronto.ca/news/2019/01/revised-663-king-west-recommended-rezoning-approval

this is a project in the heart of the city by the way and 67 m was too tall

Ugly thread worthy.

[J.OT13]

For Commerce Court, I prefer the old design on its own however, as part of the Commerce Court Complex, the new design is a better fit with the 60s tower. My biggest disappointment is the height. Why is it just barely taller than First Canadian Place? Why not build a tower that can visibly take the title?

As for Bathurst and King, the first design was tacky as all hell and the second is blander than bland. Both are atrocities IMO.

[uzi]

im surprised that no one posted the 264m union centre proposal by BIG here.