Canadian City Proposals

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally Posted by craner

Hasn't brick inlaid precast been around for a while ?
I haven't heard about any horror stories regarding durability.

I should have been clearer. I wonder the durability on the upper portions of 50 storey towers. The tall brick veneer towers of the late 60s and early 70s were having there upper facades covered up in the 1980s to prevent further deterioration. These are thin tiles.

[O-tacular]

Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper

Glass isn't the issue. The overuse of cheap window wall and standard SSG curtain wall is.


There's just way too much red brick here. The late 80s PoMo elements don't do anything to lighten the load. The Winnipeg tower is at least white.


The red brick in the rendering appears as the same style of brick (i couldn't tell you the name) as on a hundred proposal. We'll get sick of its overuse too. We did with the charcoal version of this style brick.

I like the form but agree about the overbearing single colour brick. Would be nice if they broke it up somehow.

[MonkeyRonin]

Cloverdale Mall Redevelopment




https://urbantoronto.ca/news/2019/12/quadreal-unveils-major-plans-cloverdale-mall-redevelopment-drp



Mecanoo-designed Trinity College Residence at UofT




https://urbantoronto.ca/news/2019/12/mec...imber-residence-proposed-trinity-college



661 Huron St - would be a nice little development if it weren't proposing to replace two Victorian multi-family buildings


https://urbantoronto.ca/news/2019/12/four-storey-purpose-built-rental-proposed-huron-street



Hudson Hotel at 445 Adelaide St. W - also proposing the demolition of a row of heritage houses


https://urbantoronto.ca/database/projects/445-adelaide-west



Consilium Place Block B, in Scarborough


https://urbantoronto.ca/news/2019/12/two-tower-rental-proposed-consilium-lands-scarborough-centre



860 Pharmacy Ave, in Scarborough


https://urbantoronto.ca/news/2019/12/purpose-built-rental-complex-proposed-pharmacy-and-eglinton

[niwell]

^Interesting that the westernmost portion of the row remains in the Hudson proposal. They definitely could have done better incorporating aspects of the row (the house can go), and the current design is kind of underwhelming IMO. I do appreciate the scale.

I do like the 661 Huron proposal in principle (though the roofline is kind of off), but I question the merits of tearing down two buildings that are already providing the type of affordable rental stock we are lacking. There are plenty of areas it could work, though.

[MonkeyRonin]

Originally Posted by niwell

I do like the 661 Huron proposal in principle (though the roofline is kind of off), but I question the merits of tearing down two buildings that are already providing the type of affordable rental stock we are lacking. There are plenty of areas it could work, though.

It more than anything speaks to the stupidity of our zoning bylaws. I've seen a number of similarly-scaled proposals, that while at first glance appear to fill the need for "missing middle" housing, are actually just replacing existing (generally low-cost) mid-density rental housing with higher-cost rental or condo housing.

Because of course, a new multi-family building can't replace a house on lot zoned for single-family use. The only way they'll get approved within "neighbourhood" zones is to be built on a lot that's already zoned for an existing multi-family building.

[LeftCoaster]

Originally Posted by MonkeyRonin

Cloverdale Mall Redevelopment

Why on earth would they stack all the residential immediately next to the 427 and hide the retial in behind.

What an awful scheme on both fronts. Retail should have visual prominence from the highway and residential should be pulled back from the fumes/noise of the freeway.

[Hawrylyshyn]

New tallest proposed in Guelph, Ontario - 25 floors mixed use

[MonkeyRonin]

Originally Posted by LeftCoaster

Why on earth would they stack all the residential immediately next to the 427 and hide the retial in behind.

What an awful scheme on both fronts. Retail should have visual prominence from the highway and residential should be pulled back from the fumes/noise of the freeway.

I disagree. The current shopping centre is also oriented towards the East Mall - which makes sense as traffic, whether vehicular, transit, or pedestrian (all 5 of them) enters from the street and not the highway. Add in the inevitable shadow concerns of neighbours and this better integrates with the cityscape & surrounding neighbourhood.

[LeftCoaster]

Originally Posted by MonkeyRonin

I disagree. The current shopping centre is also oriented towards the East Mall - which makes sense as traffic, whether vehicular, transit, or pedestrian (all 5 of them) enters from the street and not the highway. Add in the inevitable shadow concerns of neighbours and this better integrates with the cityscape & surrounding neighbourhood.

Well the current shopping centre failed, so not sure repeating what they did is necessarily the right move.

Also, I've never understood the Toronto propensity to build units directly adjacent or above freeways, it just makes for awful residential experiences.

[Nouvellecosse]

Another aspect is that if they moved the towers in toward the centre they'd be more tightly packed together making for poorer views.

[Andy6]

Originally Posted by MonkeyRonin

It more than anything speaks to the stupidity of our zoning bylaws. I've seen a number of similarly-scaled proposals, that while at first glance appear to fill the need for "missing middle" housing, are actually just replacing existing (generally low-cost) mid-density rental housing with higher-cost rental or condo housing.

Because of course, a new multi-family building can't replace a house on lot zoned for single-family use. The only way they'll get approved within "neighbourhood" zones is to be built on a lot that's already zoned for an existing multi-family building.

I remember looking at that one "house" -- 661 -- back in the early 90s when I was starting my Ph.D. at U of T ... it was a rabbit warren of tiny, dirty little rooms. I couldn't get out of there fast enough. I was never quite clear on what it was, even though I ended up renting right across the street from it for 3 years. Most houses along there had long since been divided into apartments. I'd imagine some have been converted back in the years since, but Huron Street was always the Baltic/Mediterranean Avenue of the Annex.

[Biff]

I really like this proposal

Originally Posted by MonkeyRonin

Hudson Hotel at 445 Adelaide St. W - also proposing the demolition of a row of heritage houses


https://urbantoronto.ca/database/projects/445-adelaide-west

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally Posted by MonkeyRonin

It more than anything speaks to the stupidity of our zoning bylaws. I've seen a number of similarly-scaled proposals, that while at first glance appear to fill the need for "missing middle" housing, are actually just replacing existing (generally low-cost) mid-density rental housing with higher-cost rental or condo housing.

Because of course, a new multi-family building can't replace a house on lot zoned for single-family use. The only way they'll get approved within "neighbourhood" zones is to be built on a lot that's already zoned for an existing multi-family building.

It's no different than applying for a 40 storey tower on a lot zoned for 5. It's not done more because it's not as profitable. A lot of people have tried and lost their shirts.

This proposal is probably because they have no other recourse. Those houses should be condemned. Renovation would be a money pit.

[MonkeyRonin]

Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper

It's no different than applying for a 40 storey tower on a lot zoned for 5. It's not done more because it's not as profitable. A lot of people have tried and lost their shirts.

Yeah, because to try to go through the approvals process to get the site rezoned, pay development fees, etc. takes a lot of time, money, and expertise. For anyone willing & able to go through with it they might as well just go for a 40-storey tower.

If the city didn't put up so many roadblocks for this sort of development (or, imagine - even actively encouraged them) though, there'd be a lot more of it. It's not as profitable as a 40-storey tower, but it also has a lower cost of entry & less risk, which makes it easier for smaller developers.

Originally Posted by Andy6

Huron Street was always the Baltic/Mediterranean Avenue of the Annex.

This description is perfect.

[Metro-One]

An update on the Westcorp tower in Kelowna

Slight height reduction from 134 meters to 129.22 meters.

An extra level of underground parking has been added while two podium levels of parking have been changed to hotel space.

Overall the proposal seems more firm now and apparently the hotel anchor is soon to be announced. It also seems to have better street interaction than before.

Would be great if someone (Koops65??? Pretty Please!) could make a model for it.

So here are a few elevations and renders from the report.

W7 by Ian, on Flickr

W5 by Ian, on Flickr

W4 by Ian, on Flickr

W3 by Ian, on Flickr

W2 by Ian, on Flickr

W1 by Ian, on Flickr

All images were taken from the Westcorp PDF.

[905er]

that Guelph proposal is absolutely grotesque!!! it actually looks like a 60's tower that is going over a bad makeover.

[GeneralLea]

Good god, what the hell....the Guelph proposal is awful. It looks like Le Smithe's brother...I'd be happier seeing a soberly designed 60's slab than this thing.

Both Huron proposals fall pretty flat to me, they just don't add anything to the area in terms of vitality or well, uses that benefit the area.

I'm unsurprised to hear of how 661 Huron and similar homes are nearby, but they do serve as crucial stock for rentals geared toward students....no matter their condition, which is the unfortunate reality we live in.

[FrAnKs]

Originally Posted by Hawrylyshyn

New tallest proposed in Guelph, Ontario - 25 floors mixed use

I tried finding something good in this and I failed.

0/10

[itom 987]

It's tall!

[ssiguy]

I'd rather have an empty parking lot that that monstrocity in Guelph.