Posted by urbandreamer on SSP:

40 SCOTT ST
OPA / Rezoning 11 190645 STE 28 OZ Ward 28
- Tor & E.York May 9, 2011 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Proposal for a 58 storey residential tower containing 513 units on a 5 storey podium, 48,605 square metres in area, 734 square metres foe retail based uses.

Is it 58 or 63 floors?

Seems like it's the corner of Scott and Colborne... I have no idea where they're planning to stick a tower there. You have two condos kitty corner to each other, the King Edward Hotel and a beautiful Sunlife art deco building.

Seems like it's the corner of Scott and Colborne... I have no idea where they're planning to stick a tower there. You have two condos kitty corner to each other, the King Edward Hotel and a beautiful Sunlife art deco building.

I just had a look at the Deco building, I think you're right it is that location. My Guess is that they'll use it for the podium. If you look at it at some point in it's histrory 2 extra floors were added onto it.

Ain't gonna happen. Not in a million years.

Never say never in this city.

5-6 years ago when this boom started, 49 and 58 storeys would be huge news. It's almost become expected and typical news now, hearing about proposals of this height coming out every other week or so. The next generation of developments to hit the market is loaded.

I just had a look at the Deco building, I think you're right it is that location. My Guess is that they'll use it for the podium. If you look at it at some point in it's histrory 2 extra floors were added onto it.

Hope you're wrong, that's one of the best buildings on the street. There are at least 1000 buildings in the core I'd like to see taken down before this one.

I hope I'm wrong as well but I don't see the city or OMB stopping a developer from using it as a new podium, the floor count makes sense that this is the building in question. (-7 the two added on floors)

Heritage preservation should mean the interior in addition to the exterior. If we keep saving exterior facades and calling that preservation, we'll have nothing left in 50 years.

The height is wholly inappropriate for the area. A total non-starter. Like I said, it ain't gonna happen.

The height is wholly inappropriate for the area. A total non-starter. Like I said, it ain't gonna happen.

I hope they see it that way, but it is pretty close to the CBD...

The building standing on the site right now should not be touched. There's a parking lot down the street if they want to build something.

The height is wholly inappropriate for the area. A total non-starter. Like I said, it ain't gonna happen.

In what way, shape or form is the height inappropriate? It's directly adjacent to the CBD and is near two major streets and the subway line. The only things that could possibly be shadowed are 100 metre tall office towers. I couldn't think of a better place for a tall tower.

Rough massing (with some fanciful setbacks), measured from ground at 600', or basically 58 storeys.


http://i180.photobucket.com/albums/x11/CanadianNational/50scott2.jpg


http://i180.photobucket.com/albums/x11/CanadianNational/50scott1.jpg


http://i180.photobucket.com/albums/x11/CanadianNational/50scott5.jpg


http://i180.photobucket.com/albums/x11/CanadianNational/50scott4.jpg


http://i180.photobucket.com/albums/x11/CanadianNational/50scott3.jpg

that would definitely be a sweet spot for a 58 or 63 story tower, preferably the latter. This'll be seen from the lake so it can't look like shit.

an art deco building done well here with the setbacks shown above would be beautiful.

Theoretically, this could work. The existing art deco building has a fairly large inner courtyard that could perhaps be used for the central support of the new tower, which would then give it the effect of "floating" over top of the old structure and would leave it almost entirely untouched. However, that its residential could create a problem. Anything other than a dignified, "corporate" (i.e. an office or something that looks like it) design here would look wholly inappropriate.

I think a building of this height would be very appropriate for this area. One King West, L Tower, and BCE Place are all next door. The height downtown needs to spread east too. Though I agree that filling an empty parking lot is a better option than a fine art deco building.

I personally don't think the current deco building will lose any grace with additional floors added. Once again take a look at it, at some point two dull boring floors were added on to it that in this proposal will be chopped off. We have a few deco buildings around town that always felt like bases for something more to me.

I always thought that 210 dundas street west should have been the base for a tall tower. It's almost like while other cities were building towers we were just building the podiums. College Park case and point.

The developer could look to the Hearst Tower (NYC) for inspiration on how to build a quality modern adaptation on top of a classic historical building. However, the architect for this proposal is Page+Steele, so I'm not too optimistic on what we're going to get.

Sigh...if only Toronto architects had this kind of vision..

http://imageshack.us/m/810/7676/hearsttower.jpg

^^ really? I don't like the look of that one at all.

Posted by Automation Gallery on UT.

Here is a little more info from city planning.

40 SCOTT ST

OPA / Rezoning 11 190645 STE 28 OZ Ward 28
- Tor & E.York May 9, 2011 --- --- --- Henstock, Sarah
416-392-7196

The purpose of the rezoning application is to permit a 58-storey residential building comprised of a 5-storey podium and 53-storey tower. The proposed building is 195 metres tall including the mechanical penthouse and contains 513 units. The gross floor area of the building is 48,605 square metres which includes 734 square metres of ground floor retail uses. The proposal includes 365 car parking spaces in 5 levels of underground parking. The applicant is proposing to demolish the existing 7-storey structure and preserve and reuse its stone cladding for the new podium. The applicant has advised it is their intent to develop this project as a condominium.

So is Toronto, Canada's version of a sunbelt city? It's great this dignified 80 year old building will most likely get topped by the same generic condo crap that Toronto has thrown up in the last 7-8 years. As late as 2003 you guys had a great skyline, great skyscrapers designed by great architects dominating it, now you guys are like Vancouver on steroids. Banal glassy 40 to 50 story towers, the more the merrier, especially between downtown and Rogers Centre and the lakefront. Now if they were building Calgary's Bow skyscraper quality all over Toronto that could be cool but they aren't.

I'll bet when 40 Scott Street was built people bitched that it was banal and boring, and no Chrysler Building. By the way, how do you know what this proposal looks like? If you have ESP or insider knowledge, please share with us.

We don't need The Bow (The World's Tallest Toronto City Hall), because we have had the original since back in the '50's. Sure there have been a lot of sleek but ultimately boring glass towers built in the past decade, but our city is booming and there are immigrants from around the world pouring in. Toronto is a city where people actually want to live downtown. They have to be housed, and not all of them can afford to buy into super high budget luxury condos, so that is where developers stepped in and transformed former brown fields into new neighbourhoods.
If this were a sleepy little city with zero growth, then the skyline would still be like it was in 2003. And everyone would be bored stiff, bitterly jealous and bitching like crazy. It may not be to everyone's taste, but a city that doesn't grow or change is a museum city, and that is certainly not what Toronto is all about. It has boomed in the past ten years, and its new buildings reflect the style of architecture popular during that period. The latest crop of proposals in this past year seem to be taking on a different look and I am quite happy that we seem to moving beyond the glass condo phase. We are not completely out of the woods yet, but things are looking up.

And not all of the proposals need to be gems -in fact, not even most.
They consume parking lots & Brownfields, enrich the fabric and simply add general density. Cynosures will pop-up every so often -we hope.

and in the mean time,
Toronto: The cutting edge of architectural cliché.

Oh well... gives us something to be jaded about!

We don't need The Bow (The World's Tallest Toronto City Hall), because we have had the original since back in the '50's. Sure there have been a lot of sleek but ultimately boring glass towers built in the past decade, but our city is booming and there are immigrants from around the world pouring in. Toronto is a city where people actually want to live downtown. They have to be housed, and not all of them can afford to buy into super high budget luxury condos, so that is where developers stepped in and transformed former brown fields into new neighbourhoods.
If this were a sleepy little city with zero growth, then the skyline would still be like it was in 2003. And everyone would be bored stiff, bitterly jealous and bitching like crazy. It may not be to everyone's taste, but a city that doesn't grow or change is a museum city, and that is certainly not what Toronto is all about. It has boomed in the past ten years, and its new buildings reflect the style of architecture popular during that period. The latest crop of proposals in this past year seem to be taking on a different look and I am quite happy that we seem to moving beyond the glass condo phase. We are not completely out of the woods yet, but things are looking up.


Not to mention that the city would be insanely expensive if the supply of new housing units didn't meet the demand to live here, as is the case in a certain NIMBY-controlled city that our friend here is from. Oh, and then all of the growth would have to come in the form of more sprawl on the fringes.

But anyway, I certainly hope this proposal doesn't come to pass, not if it involves demolishing the existing gorgeous building.

But anyway, I certainly hope this proposal doesn't come to pass, not if it involves demolishing the existing gorgeous building.

It's a decent, albeit bland, deco building. I'm in no rush to tear it down, but I think that it's a bit of a stretch to call it "gorgeous". That wouldn't be fair to the actual beauties from that era.

I'm with you. It was a work-a-day no frills building to begin with, and to me looks like one of those Depression era Make-Work projects. I'd like to see it kept as it is, but at bare minimum keep the façade... but I don't see it as gorgeous by any stretch of the imagination.

So Toronto has no sprawl? Good to to know. My point is that great cities have great architecture. Toronto at one time was known for that. Imagine instead of generic glass buildings between the Rogers Centre and the Air Canada Centre you had a park like my Yerba Buena Gardens that my nimby city of San Francisco has. Think of it as a Boston Common of the 21st century, but no, developers filled it in with whatever towers. Does Toronto like that? One of my biggest points I always try to put out there in this forum is that skyscrapers and supertalls, or 3 to 4 storey infills, whatever are great, but it's all in context of it's surroundings. I just want my peeps on this forum to be aware of that. And yeah architecture matters. Toronto's Trump Tower, probably not many recently arrived immigrants living there, sucks compared to Trump Tower Chicago, pretty nice architecture, imo; anyways Toronto's new city hall is emblamatic of my position; great architecture. So forget the Bow in Calgary, have your developers build more of your own citys', city hall, it'll most likely look better than whatever some developer is gonna build above or within 40 Scott.

So you know, I love Toronto, been there several times. I just think as a city, concerning new skysrapers, it needs to step it up a notch architecturally. Your cultural facilities are top notch, latest skyscrapers, not so much. Toronto is the defacto capital of Canada. People want to compare it to Chicago or New York City, got a ways to go.

But anyway, I certainly hope this proposal doesn't come to pass, not if it involves demolishing the existing gorgeous building.

I'm going to get some pics of it today. I don't think mkost people know what this building really looks like. It's a mish mash of designs that have been added onto it over the years. It's a bit of a frankenstein building. My only wish is that we get something with a bit of flare and that the developer can bring back the original look and details of the art deco structure.

I think people also need to realize that in many cases older structures near the core have been gutted and re-gutted over and over again to meet the needs of the tenants. I doubt this building has more the 10% of it's original art deco design on the inside.

So you know, I love Toronto, been there several times. I just think as a city, concerning new skysrapers, it needs to step it up a notch architecturally. Your cultural facilities are top notch, latest skyscrapers, not so much. Toronto is the defacto capital of Canada. People want to compare it to Chicago or New York City, got a ways to go.

I think most people here would have to agree with you. But we do have some great towers on the way now and developers seem to finally be getting it that people want to live in nice looking buildings. Our main problem has been with out of town developers hoping to cash in on our boom just building any old crap which is why we've been getting so many of these Vancouverish condo's.

Nobody here compares us to New York, as for Chicago we're only a few decades away from passing it in population. Lets hope at that point we have the buildings that we deserve. I think we will.

As promised earlier some pictures of the building in question. From what I can tell from walking around it today the shell of it is about the only thing that has any historical value left. It looks like half of it got a facade job back in the 80's not to mention two additional floors. IMO it would make a great base for a super tall.

http://i72.photobucket.com/albums/i165/whistlerinToronto/IMG_6587.jpg?t=1305427182

http://i72.photobucket.com/albums/i165/whistlerinToronto/IMG_6588.jpg?t=1305427211

http://i72.photobucket.com/albums/i165/whistlerinToronto/IMG_6591.jpg?t=1305427249

http://i72.photobucket.com/albums/i165/whistlerinToronto/IMG_6592.jpg?t=1305427284

http://i72.photobucket.com/albums/i165/whistlerinToronto/IMG_6594.jpg?t=1305427324

http://i72.photobucket.com/albums/i165/whistlerinToronto/IMG_6597.jpg?t=1305427374

http://i72.photobucket.com/albums/i165/whistlerinToronto/IMG_6598.jpg?t=1305427415

http://i72.photobucket.com/albums/i165/whistlerinToronto/IMG_6600.jpg?t=1305427457

http://i72.photobucket.com/albums/i165/whistlerinToronto/IMG_6599.jpg?t=1305427486

So Toronto has no sprawl? Good to to know. My point is that great cities have great architecture. Toronto at one time was known for that.


Those buildings are all still there. Nothing has disappeared. We have some wonderful International Style buildings, but on the other hand we are a city that has gone through some growth booms since the 70's, as opposed to being a dusty museum; a vital city on the move has MANY styles of architecture, both good and bad. We've got PoMo, we've got Brutalism, and now we have glass towers that are representative of the latest boom we have gone through as people stampede to live downtown. Most of our big corporations and banks already have their headquarters, and we need new corporations to step up and pay the big bucks needed to build more huge glamorous headquarters. In that respect, whether we like it or not, we do not have as many big multinational corporations as New York or Chicago. No point weeping buckets about it; we have our own identity and cannot waste too much time with penis envy toward other cities.
When a city booms you take the good with the bad. Our downtown is thriving and expanding, but we have to house all sorts of income groups, and not simply the ultra rich.
If our city centre were moribund and our suburbs expanding we could smugly sit back and say we have none of those nasty glass condos, but frankly I doubt if many of us would rather be trapped in the past. We are not exactly the same as we were in 1970 or 1980 or 1990 (like so many other cities... ) and Hallelujah for that! :yes:

By the way you may be interested to hear we are looking to see if there is sufficient support to start a subforum for San Francisco on SSC.


Andrew, thanks for those pics. Google Streetscape just doesn't give the whole picture.

40 Scott St (The Royal & Sun Alliance Building) isn't an outstanding building - it's been too compromised by insensitive add-ons - but I've always loved it for its quiet, understated elegance. It's a successful "fabric" building that gives depth to Toronto's architectural heritage. The original PWA Moderne-influenced section on Scott and Wellington should be saved in its entirety, inside and out. That won't happen, of course. Instead, it'll be turned into an empty shell, a kitschy relic, a marketing "hook" with no architectural integrity whatsoever, propping up a generic Page+Steele pile of crap. Sigh.

Page & Steel if we're lucky.

So is Toronto, Canada's version of a sunbelt city? It's great this dignified 80 year old building will most likely get topped by the same generic condo crap that Toronto has thrown up in the last 7-8 years. As late as 2003 you guys had a great skyline, great skyscrapers designed by great architects dominating it, now you guys are like Vancouver on steroids. Banal glassy 40 to 50 story towers, the more the merrier, especially between downtown and Rogers Centre and the lakefront. Now if they were building Calgary's Bow skyscraper quality all over Toronto that could be cool but they aren't.Not terribly accurate since the skyline is still by far dominated by the corporate headquarters in the financial district. Even when all the buildings currently under construction are complete, 6 out of the 10 tallest - including the tallest itself - will be major office buildings rather than hotel or residential. In Vancouver, the tallest is a blue-glass hotel, and the the majority of the 10 tallest are recent (completed within last decade) glass hotel/condo buildings with the condos making up most of the skyline from many views since they are the same height as the office buildings. In Toronto, from most vantage points, the financial core is still quite dominant and will continue to be for the foreseeable future.

That being said, no one is a bigger advocate than me for moderating the blue-glass craze. But lets keep things in perspective here...

I am definitely all for a subforum for the Bay area, there are some people who live out here and a city or town or two, or so I've heard.

I am definitely all for a subforum for the Bay area, there are some people who live out here and a city or town or two, or so I've heard.

I actually installed one this morning! :carrot: It should be visible by tonight or tomorrow. I'm quite excited about it, and hope you will contribute to the section, with some nice pictures, too if possible! :okay:

No one is building Calgary's Bow quality all over their respective cities. What a ridiculous statement and high standard.

The developer could look to the Hearst Tower (NYC) for inspiration on how to build a quality modern adaptation on top of a classic historical building. However, the architect for this proposal is Page+Steele, so I'm not too optimistic on what we're going to get.

Sigh...if only Toronto architects had this kind of vision..

http://imageshack.us/m/810/7676/hearsttower.jpg

I love Hearst. What a terrific looking building. :okay:

By Atlantis on UT.


Got some renders for everyone! Was walking down Wellington this evening when I came across the 'application submitted' poster on the building. Here are some shots I snapped of the elevation drawings. Sorry for the grainy resolution, they were taken in low light.


First is the full drawing showing both the East and South elevations:

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5023/5760291769_48577f144b_b.jpg


Closeup of the podium, South elevation:

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3476/5760841998_44ab96b869_b.jpg


Closeup of the podium, East elevation:

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3190/5760295217_51f499881c_b.jpg

It's so beautiful.. What a welcome change from the oppressive glass boxes.

That 501 Yonge has got to be the most hideous thing I've seen proposed for Toronto.

Thanks Elk! That looks very promising, but wouldn't mind a heftier building here. That strong deco base is just asking for a supertall. Wider and 350-400 m?

Regarding 501: we really haven't been presented with anything to comment on other than it will be two 58 floor towers with a 5 floor podium.

Thanks Elk! That looks very promising, but wouldn't mind a heftier building here. That strong deco base is just asking for a supertall. Wider and 350-400 m?

Regarding 501: we really haven't been presented with anything to comment on other than it will be two 58 floor towers with a 5 floor podium.

There are elevations (like the ones for this tower) over on UT.. Looks like a Corbusier nightmare, especially that base..EEESHHH

The tower is... Unfortunate.

http://urbantoronto.ca/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=7419

That link doesn't come up for me as I am not a UT member, but are you thinking of that massing model that a UT member dreamt up for 501 Yonge!?!?? It was not even an official massing model... just a wild guess. Let me know if anything new has been released.

^^ It's just an elevation, but it does look rather ominous. I'm worried.

There are elevations (like the ones for this tower) over on UT.. Looks like a Corbusier nightmare, especially that base..EEESHHH

The tower is... Unfortunate.

http://urbantoronto.ca/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=7419

I see...sort of what I expected. It's Lanterra, so architecture isn't going to be a priority. Hopefully, Lanterra will go belly up and leave town along with Concord.

Not so sure about this. I'm not so keen on the precast portion. Will reserve my judgement till I see the final product.

That link doesn't come up for me as I am not a UT member, but are you thinking of that massing model that a UT member dreamt up for 501 Yonge!?!?? It was not even an official massing model... just a wild guess. Let me know if anything new has been released.


Nope, this is it:

http://img853.imageshack.us/img853/952/501yongest.jpg

that sketchup model was better than that box!

Is it confirmed that limestone will be used as a main facade material for this building? If so, I'm more excited than i've ever been about a project in Toronto. What more would you want than a limestone art deco inspired building with some nice height and setbacks. :D

Not confirmed.. Hell we know next to nothing about this tower!

The more I look at those elevations, the more I think that tower is sex. Soaring lines, setbacks, opaque facade.. GORGEOUS. Given its location it will feel like it was there for the better part of the last century.

I love it, like I was saying before some of are art deco buildings will make for great podiums for deco inspired towers.

Elkhanan1 thanks for that post. I can't wait to see more on this one.

Yeah, I'm liking what I see so far, too... a huge improvement on the last reno done to that site.

I'm really liking those renders, but my enthusiasm is still tempered by my desire to see more parking lots eaten up before perfectly acceptable existing buildings are converted.

There are some empty lots not too far from there too...

We need those lots for supertalls.

Easily the best proposal in the city from my biased POV

I love it, like I was saying before some of are art deco buildings will make for great podiums for deco inspired towers.
Couldn't agree more, the developer is really exploiting the land in a good way :cheers:

Wow this building is actually a lot better than i thought. hopefully they choose a nice cladding and it isn't reduced in height. I'm loving the setbacks.

Couldn't agree more, the developer is really exploiting the land in a good way :cheers:

I meant to say OUR not ARE.

It'll all come down to the materials. Curtain-wall glazing and limestone? Beautiful. Window wall and precast? Ugly.

I'm going to assume pre-cast and window wall so I won't be disapointed.

well, likely stone for the lower section, and precast for the upper. You can't really tell the difference when it is 200 metres up in the air, anyway.

well, likely stone for the lower section, and precast for the upper. You can't really tell the difference when it is 200 metres up in the air, anyway.

Um, that's no way to build a beautiful city.

Could be stone for the entire building, but I was being cautious. Entirely stone clad 58 storey towers are probably rarer than we think in 2011.

They could use high quality pre-cast.

http://thetorontoblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/Window-washer-at-One-St-Thomas-condo-tower-April-22-2011-IMG_5299.jpg

Yeah, that is the type I was referring to. I don't see that as being a bad idea at all.

^^ I agree with you there.

(Also, stone is not as out-of-the-question as people think. I've seen plenty of recent buildings with real stone in Vancouver, Chicago, Boston, and Atlanta. There are quite a number of new buildings with extensive stonework in NYC too. Don't let local developers fool you. They're just being cheap and the city's letting them get away with it.)

^^ I agree with you there.

(Also, stone is not as out-of-the-question as people think. I've seen plenty of recent buildings with real stone in Vancouver, Chicago, Boston, and Atlanta. There are quite a number of new buildings with extensive stonework in NYC too. Don't let local developers fool you. They're just being cheap and the city's letting them get away with it.)


It would be nice, but for something nearly 60 storeys tall, it requires some serious moohlah to make it happen. I'm happy with real stone on the bottom third and good precast on the top 2/3.
I've seen completely stone clad condos, but they are usually short buildings. The one in Vancouver that I've seen pics of is quite short.

If they make the precast look as real as possible I'd be fine with it. There's no way we'll get a building over 20 stories clad in real stone; there's simply not the passion nor the money there to do so. As much as I wish we were back in the 30's, it just aint gonna happen. The setback part will make things more believable too, as the attention to detail in the "stone" facade probably won't be present either.

Stone is very doable for this tower. The base is recycled stone from the existing building and the shaft is mostly glass. Unlike 1 St Thomas, 40 Scott calls for pre-cast / stone to be used as an accent material on the hi-rise portion. Also, with the Chinese aggressively promoting low-cost curtain wall systems, curtain glazing is very doable too. (We'll be seeing more Chinese curtain glazing in Toronto in the near future.)

what it looks like today:

http://i82.photobucket.com/albums/j251/dawnd_01/WINTER%202008/Winter%20Part%20Two%202009/Late%20Summer%20Early%20Fall%202009/2010%20Summer%20Part%20Deux/Winter%202011/IMGP3803.jpg

^^ I agree with you there.

(Also, stone is not as out-of-the-question as people think. I've seen plenty of recent buildings with real stone in Vancouver, Chicago, Boston, and Atlanta. There are quite a number of new buildings with extensive stonework in NYC too. Don't let local developers fool you. They're just being cheap and the city's letting them get away with it.)

I think you're confusing precast concrete for stone as I see lots of precast but very little stone making up the residential towers being built in Atlanta, New York and Chicago. 520 units over 60 storeys does not indicate a high end product selling at $3000 a square foot either (typical glass tower framed in stone in Vancity)

I love Hearst building, too. both the inside and the outside.
If you have to compare Toronto to NY or (Canadians to Americans) with 40 Scott and Hearst, one might almost want to say this.
'Canadians seem to put a little effort on designing a building with little passion for architecture, and focus on getting some money from the big project, while Americans dream of and search for true beauty of great architecture.' OR just
'Canadian architects suck and so as owners and developers in terms of architectural appreciation'

Well, It's not true, but It's not completely false b******t either as far as I've seen. I just hope that one day Canadians(or Torontonians) will seriously enjoy and properly appreciate art and architecture more than any one else in the world including Americans, Japanese, and of course Europeans. Of course if that wish comes true, Toronto won't be a boring city any longer.

Of course if that wish comes true, Toronto won't be a boring city any longer.

I don't find it boring now. There is more to a city than bricks and mortar, and there is more to a city than having penis envy about other cities.

I don't find it boring now. There is more to a city than bricks and mortar, and there is more to a city than having penis envy about other cities.

Many long-term and short-term visitors show their dissatisfaction with the city of Toronto comparing to some other cities in North America. I'm also not so convinced by this city at the moment. (but I love Toronto :) ) Although Toronto is not a completely boring city, in my opinion, it has A LOT OF work to be done to be recognized by the people of the world either as a beautiful city or an exciting city.

I recently visited Montreal for my second time, and fell in love with it again as I did in the first visit. It is a super small city, but I would personally give 2 times more points to Montreal than Toronto. The reason why is because it's just so beautiful with the remains of great historic architecture, very nicely done parks and public squares, much prettier signs, great subway stations, and so on. Toronto is a lot bigger and richer city than Montreal, plus a lot of things are being built here in Toronto these days. But my point is that people should build something beautiful or architecturally pleasing when they do it, not just simple concrete(or glass) boxes which might make money for some greedy people. Look at the elevation drawing for 501 Yonge. Anyone, literally "Anyone" could have designed that thing. Boxy, simplest and the most easy layout as a condo, + glass...well?
Just increasing the number of so-so buildings won't make Toronto as great city as Montreal or Chicago even in the future!

Well, no city is for everyone, is it? The thing is that long term people who are chronically dissatisfied with Toronto will never be happy with anything here. You say you are not convinced at this moment, but I think you have been convinced as long as you have been visiting our forum that you dislike this city you have moved to. Rather than hoping Toronto is going to magically become more like a city from your past, like Seoul, wouldn't it be simpler to just move on to somewhere that you prefer? Otherwise it just becomes a life long exercise in complaining.....Life is too short for that. Just sayin....

The reason why is because it's just so beautiful with the remains of great historic architecture, very nicely done parks and public squares, far prettier signs, great subway stations, and so on. Toronto is a lot bigger and richer city than


You do realize that the city of Toronto gets very little funding from the province or the feds to invest in the public realm unlike Montreal has had over the years. Investing in Toronto is a great way to kill your chances at the polls. If the rest of the country didn't hate us so much and we had a federal government that cared about our city we might actually get money to spend on things like parks subways and public squares like Montreal has been able to do.

That said Toronto through it's peoples own sweat and tears has built the most powerful city in the country, forced and squeezed any dime we could from higher levels of government to invest in our waterfront. Create city that has a number of the largest festivals in the country, Pride, Carabana, Nuit Blanche, Luminato to name a few. Toronto has attracted more business and has been the epicenter of the worlds strongest financial market. It's unfortunate that with all we have done for ourselves that all the tax revenues we generate get sifened out of the city never to be seen again.

If Toronto separated or even just threatened to do so we might just get to keep some of our money to invest in the things we all want and need.

2005 Canada GDP - $1,129,000,000,000
2005 Toronto GDP - $323,000,000,000
2005 Montreal GDP - $120,000,000,000
2005 Vancouver GDP - $65,000,000,000

Why am I showing these numbers you ask? Well Montreal and Vancouver have had much more invested in their downtown cores then Toronto has. The taxes generated from those number are seem to get reinvested by the feds much more then the taxes generated in Toronto. If you want to bitch about our subways and parks please save your breath as we already know, you constant complaints should be directed towards Ottawa.

Toronto is Ottawa's biggest cash cow and they will keep milking us as long as it's the popular thing to do across the country.

How did we get froma cool looking building to bashing Toronto?

A reminder what this thread is about.
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5023/5760291769_48577f144b_b.jpg

Well, no city is for everyone, is it? The thing is that long term people who are chronically dissatisfied with Toronto will never be happy with anything here. You say you are not convinced at this moment, but I think you have been convinced as long as you have been visiting our forum that you dislike this city you have moved to. Rather than hoping Toronto is going to magically become more like a city from your past, like Seoul, wouldn't it be simpler to just move on to somewhere that you prefer? Otherwise it just becomes a life long exercise in complaining.....Life is too short for that. Just sayin....

You said Seoul?
I don't want to insult Seoul, "if" I have to pick a city on this planet that I want Toronto to be like, it will be NYC(only with the positive side of course).

There are many more reasons to be in or to love Canada other than being satisfied with the city I live.
Plus, If all of Chinese people, for example, have to leave China because they hate the CCP(Chinese Communist Party) and the repressive dictatorship, or if they should take a suggestion like yours "why don't you just move to a desirable place that you think has the best political system instead of arguing or complaining which is hopeless", China will never become a proud member of our democratic society nor a country with improved human rights.
We have to realize what's better and what was bad for us and put efforts on achieving it.


You do realize that the city of Toronto gets very little funding from the province or the feds to invest in the public realm unlike Montreal has had over the years. Investing in Toronto is a great way to kill your chances at the polls. If the rest of the country didn't hate us so much and we had a federal government that cared about our city we might actually get money to spend on things like parks subways and public squares like Montreal has been able to do.

That said Toronto through it's peoples own sweat and tears has built the most powerful city in the country, forced and squeezed any dime we could from higher levels of government to invest in our waterfront. Create city that has a number of the largest festivals in the country, Pride, Carabana, Nuit Blanche, Luminato to name a few. Toronto has attracted more business and has been the epicenter of the worlds strongest financial market. It's unfortunate that with all we have done for ourselves that all the tax revenues we generate get sifened out of the city never to be seen again.

If Toronto separated or even just threatened to do so we might just get to keep some of our money to invest in the things we all want and need.

2005 Canada GDP - $1,129,000,000,000
2005 Toronto GDP - $323,000,000,000
2005 Montreal GDP - $120,000,000,000
2005 Vancouver GDP - $65,000,000,000

Why am I showing these numbers you ask? Well Montreal and Vancouver have had much more invested in their downtown cores then Toronto has. The taxes generated from those number are seem to get reinvested by the feds much more then the taxes generated in Toronto. If you want to bitch about our subways and parks please save your breath as we already know, you constant complaints should be directed towards Ottawa.

Toronto is Ottawa's biggest cash cow and they will keep milking us as long as it's the popular thing to do across the country.

I see. I had a friend at UofT always complaining about Canadian government's budget execution but,
I might have to let them(Ottawa) know the piece of my mind. (hope that they listen to the voice of its citizen.)

if" I have to pick a city on this planet that I want Toronto to be like, it will be NYC(only with the positive side of course).


But, I don't get it... why do we have to pick a city we want Toronto to "be like"? If we wanted that other city, why wouldn't we just move there? For myself, I want Toronto to be Toronto, and not a half baked effort to pretend to be anywhere else simply to satisfy citizens who have gone on vacation and wished this city was like the place they had fun at on their holidays. We work to improve the city, but to wish and hope that we are going to be like New York, or Paris, or any other city is quite futile. And while we are at it, we could try holding other cities up to the impossibly high standards we demand of Toronto when we make our "comparisons". :dunno:

STAFF REPORT - MAY 26, 2011

http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2011/te/bgrd/backgroundfile-38813.pdf

Proposal
The applicant is proposing a 58-storey building comprised of a 5-storey podium and 53-
storey tower. The proposal involves demolishing the existing 7-storey building. The
existing building is made up of the original 5-storey building constructed in 1951 and
additions from the late 1970's / early 1980's. The facing materials from the original 5-
storey building will be saved and used to reconstruct the façade as part of the new
podium. The additions, which include the top 2 storeys and the portion of the building on
the western part of the site along Wellington Street East will not be retained or
reconstructed. The proposal includes a private lane located approximately midblock that
extends from Wellington Street East through to Colborne Street.

The height of the building is 184.76 metres (194.36 metres including the mechanical
penthouse). At 5 storeys, which is the roof of the podium, the building steps back 12
metres from Wellington Street East and 4.5 metres from Colborne Street. Most of the
podium is set back 4.5 metres from the Scott Street right-of-way with no further setback
for the tower along much of the street until the tower climbs to a significant height where
small step-backs at a number of different locations and heights are used to articulate the
tower.

(Architect is Page+Steele/IBI)

Ugh, another facadectomy.

Posted by Ed007Toronto on UT.

Better quality elevations.
http://urbantoronto.ca/picoftheday/images/40ScottElevation1.jpg

http://urbantoronto.ca/picoftheday/images/40ScottElevation2.jpg

http://urbantoronto.ca/picoftheday/images/40ScottElevation3.jpg

http://urbantoronto.ca/picoftheday/images/40ScottElevation4.jpg

Ugh, another facadectomy.

No, the facadectomy happened twenty or thirty years ago. This is improving the structure that is behind it. What it looks like now:

http://i82.photobucket.com/albums/j251/dawnd_01/WINTER%202008/Winter%20Part%20Two%202009/Late%20Summer%20Early%20Fall%202009/2010%20Summer%20Part%20Deux/Winter%202011/IMGP3803.jpg

You mean they gutted it back in the 70s-80s so the original interior is already gone? If that's the case, this is the best one can hope for.

I don't really know what happened, but obviously the building has been pre-butchered. There is nothing exciting or nice about the top to prevent a nice tower from going up, and I certainly love the look of the new building.
To me it was a pretty bare bones work-a-day building when it was built 80 years ago, so an exciting new development might enhance what is presently an okay but nothing very elaborate or glamorous façade.

It might not be elaborate, but it's one of my favourite facades in the city. It's solid, heavy, and give the block a sense of permanence. I like both the new tower design and the plan to save the facade. The best of both!

It could turn out to be of similar quality to Minto Midtown at Y&E. That would be nice!

There are a ton of parking lots in that area, leave this building alone and go build a nice new skyscraper there.

^^ Well, the original building was already butchered ages ago.... nothing is happening to whatever is left of the original (as far as I can tell); it is just the newer (and not particularly attractive) stuff that seems to be slated for replacement. I can't help but see this as a win-win project.

its at a good location, beefin up that east core

The damage has already been done to this late art deco building. The 80's addition is hideous and I don't even want to know how it's been butchered inside.

A "facadectomy" would be a sensible incorporation into this condo proposal.

Personally, I'm thrilled it's not some half ass modernist design.

I like all the setbacks. (so art deco)

Hey, it's not a box and it actually has something many architects in this city seem to be forgetting that they are supposed to include - DESIGN!

I like it.

Posted by interchange42 on UT.

Here are the teaser shots:

http://urbantoronto.ca/picoftheday/images/88ScottTeaserCard640.jpg

http://urbantoronto.ca/picoftheday/images/88ScottTeaserSky179.jpg

Nothing special. Looks kind of iffy and has potential to look cheap if poorly executed. Probably about what I would have expected based on elevations. And very typical of a Page+Steele design. The name change will be a lot more attractive to the Asian investors.

Looks kind of iffy and has potential to look cheap if poorly executed.

Or, has the potential to look great if well executed. :)

I like it, personally.

The roofline is very atypical of P+S. With curtain glazing, this can be very nice. With window-wall, likely not. I don't like that awkward wraparound box element.

this will give 1 king a near by tall slim cousin i like the design but the top could be thought out a bit more

Original elevations suggested a more stone style pinnacle, which would have looked brilliant. Like Andrew said, if well executed this will be fantastic for the area.

Having just come back from my first visit to Chicago, I have come to realise just how bland some of the recent condo developments really are here, and that there needs to be some political leadership to insure that design standards are improved and that cookie cutter towers are stopped in their tracks so that the legacy for the future is one of beauty, diversity and elegance. This tower is on the border of having enough design, and contrast of materials to be a worthy addition, but as mentioned above it depends on the execution.

I'm surprised that this appears to be all glazed, when I suppose I was hoping for more of an inspiration of Art Deco, and a stone-like finish (in practice probably nicely done precast). To my eye, whether it is curtain wall or not makes no difference to the final look; it is more a question of how much glass and I am disappointed that there is so much glass.

Chicago is an amazing city, architecturally, especially with all the beautifully executed International School towers designed by the Bauhaus School of architects. They have their share of ugly and indifferently slapped up residential towers, too... but over all the architecture is of a very high standard. Again, in general (and there are notable exceptions) the Head Office towers are more prestigious and high budget projects than residential towers. Chicago does have some very high budget residential projects, too though.

Having just come back from my first visit to Chicago, I have come to realise just how bland some of the recent condo developments really are here, and that there needs to be some political leadership to insure that design standards are improved and that cookie cutter towers are stopped in their tracks so that the legacy for the future is one of beauty, diversity and elegance. This tower is on the border of having enough design, and contrast of materials to be a worthy addition, but as mentioned above it depends on the execution.

Chicago and Toronto are about the same age but Chicago has been an important city for well over a century vs. only about 3 decades for Toronto. Also, Chicagoan and American culture have always been more ambitious than Torontonian and Canadian culture. Chicago thinks big. Toronto thinks compromise. Finally, there is a very long tradition of citizen involvement in Chicago. Chicagoans are passionate about architecture and urban design, perhaps even more so than New Yorkers. All these factors, and others, make Chicago outshine Toronto.

Superior architecture aside, what's most distressing for me as a Torontonian is how degraded our public realm is compared to Chicago's. Their parks are gorgeous and spotless; sidewalk trees are tall, green, and thriving; sidewalks are unpatched; there are flowers and (functional!) fountains everywhere. Also, their civic institutions - Harold Washington Library, The Art Institute, Shedd Aquarium, etc. - are magnificent and make ours look downright dowdy. Sigh...

^ True, Toronto could use more Chicago, but Chicago could use more Toronto too, IMO. Central Chicago is very grand, shiny, ornate, imposing etc., but lacks some of the dynamic energy and informal texture of central Toronto.

Central Chicago seems like what you'd get if you had the Toronto financial district between Front, University, Church, and Queen repeated several times all the way from Front street up to Bloor. Much more grand and beautiful than what exists now, but something would be missing.

I wholly agree about the recent batch of condos though. We need fewer copy/paste blue/silver glass structures and more variety and creativity in terms of design. They don't all need to be, or even look, super expensive; they just need to be interesting.

I agree that the center of Chicago lacks the personal scale, but it is stunning, and you can walk around in what feels like a spacious environment (unlike NYC). I do like the proximity of atmospheric neighbourhoods to the core in Toronto, which seems to be lacking in Chicago. Downtown chicago seems like a great place to visit, but downtown Toronto feels like a great place to live.

This time in Toronto (and after the impending crash) will be the period that determines what Toronto will look like for a very long time, and while the core has good architecture, what is going up around the peripherary could blight the appearance of what is a great city forever. I look at the TIFF Bell lightbox, and the quality of the window frames (and I'm not talking about the balcony glass) and I'm horrified. They already look a bit shabby, lord knows what they'll look like in 10 or 20 years time. I'd rather we had half the proposals we have on the table now, and that that half were all very high quality.
Hopefully this project, and ICE etc will make up for some of the rubbish that has gone up.

We do need more corporate landmark towers.

We do need more corporate landmark towers.

First I think we need some more multinational corporations. Most of the ones we have already built their head office towers, going back to the 60's and 70's when there was that type of building boom. I think we are all (or at least most) realistic enough to know that we are not the economic powerhouses that New York and Chicago are, and we do not have the same number of massive multinational corporations. I'm hoping this can change in the future so we have the need for some new mega-buck high prestige Head Office towers! At the end of the day, someone has to pay for ultra-prestige projects, so we need some corporations with deep pockets! :yes:

It would be nice if the City stepped in and started demanding a broader range of finishes and designs for towers to slow down the rampage of ubiquitous glass clad towers. I, for one, don't think simply demanding curtain wall is the answer, either... there has to be some different visual colour and texture than simply all glass. But, I don't think the current administration is bright enough to be interested in things like that, as it wouldn't benefit developer buddies, so it is unlikely to happen.

But, I don't think the current administration is bright enough to be interested in things like that.

I just see pictures of Rob Ford and my blood begins to boil...and I've only been here 2 months!!

Having been to Chicago several times it's downtown core puts ours to shame, architecture, public spaces, etc. However the high level of detail drops off fast and outside of it's downtown it's pretty run down in places to a degree you will not find in Toronto. Chicago has always been home to amazing modern architecture, it may have some of the best on the planet so really try not to compare our highrises with theirs too much. Most of our new highrises are pretty attractive, just not showstoppers, and a bit too cookie cutter. But hey when you have around 100 highrises u/c in one city it's tough not to see the same design styles popping up. What this city needs is an iconic 1400ft office tower.

i think toronto compares well to chicago, chi town has more taller iconic buildings in the downtown, but toronto actually overall contains more high rises...the city sprawls with the boroughs having alot of apartment and condo development compared to chicago. but outside of our cbd core we lack those big boys that chicago has, i think buildings like aura and one bloor are more of what we need. 70+ stories outside of the cbd will add more variation.


it be hard to imagine a 1400 foot tower because as mentioned all the banks and corps have their buildings already. it would take a very large company willing to invest in toronto to come and do that. i personally dont see it as a hard sell though...toronto is a great big city only expanding

Forgive me for this as I know it is off topic, but as we do seem to spend a lot of time in these forums bemoaning the fact we are not Chicago or New York, can I give my two cents to the discussion? :2cents: I love the downtown part of Chicago, but there is definitely a lot of ordinary architecture in the rest of the city that if it were here in Toronto we'd scathingly dismiss as boxes. Downtown Chicago has a proud architectural history, and you can't help but admire the gorgeous historical office towers, and the sleek International Design beauties from the 50's, 60's, and 70's. There has also been some very exciting and daring high budget contemporary projects like Aqua that are giving even further texture to the mix. As has been pointed out, Chicago was a very powerful town throughout the late 1800's and the 1900's; they are lucky to have their historical towers. History is what it is and either you got the old towers, or you didn't. Perhaps in our visits we only see the spectacular parts and don't seem to notice the ordinary; because every real city is composed of a lot of "ordinary", along with the "extraordinary". No real city is "All Iconic All the Time". Here are some pics from the talented Flar showing the broad variety of architecture that is the fabric of Chicago; some good, some bad and some indifferent. Chicago also has a lot of really dreary bad stuff out in suburbs, but I won't bother with that. I'll start with the stunning:

http://www.metroperspectives.com/img/v34/p971662881-5.jpg

http://www.metroperspectives.com/img/v27/p850449487-5.jpg

http://www.metroperspectives.com/img/v29/p928713316-5.jpg

http://www.metroperspectives.com/img/v1/p1059217884-5.jpg

http://www.metroperspectives.com/img/v29/p982973941-5.jpg

http://www.metroperspectives.com/img/v30/p825742981-5.jpg

http://www.metroperspectives.com/img/v33/p573316474-5.jpg

http://www.metroperspectives.com/img/v33/p822927539-5.jpg

http://www.metroperspectives.com/img/v27/p864719985-5.jpg

I think the true genius of Chicago's architecture was due to the settling of the Bauhaus School there, during the war, and a general civic openness to experimentation. As with all experiments,
some succeeded spectacularly and paved the road for future tower design, and some were less successful. I also think one benefit Chicago and New York have always had
is self confidence, and the ability to look at themselves and praise what has been done correctly, along with criticize what was done incorrectly. In Toronto we seem to be more comfortable lumping everything under the category of "failure", which doesn't really encourage architects to spread their wings and take a chance. Look at the beating Liebskind took for daring to expand our ROM in a fashion that was completely different to what was considered "good taste" by our local architectural pool. We say we want "different", but when we get it we are not always supportive of an architect taking risks. I think we will eventually shed the lack of confidence and automatic undermining of our achievements some day, and make the leap up to one of the great cities of the world, like Chicago. Maybe we could take first steps of pining less about what we do not have from the past, and focus on encouraging higher standards for the future! We aren't Chicago, or New York, or London, or Paris, but we can learn to encourage good growth and appreciate our city of Toronto as its own entity! :)

I really don't get the hate for the ROM, I quite like it.

Close up on the top portion. Rendering provided by interchange42 on UrbanToronto:

http://img51.imageshack.us/img51/458/88scottskyline750.jpg

Starting to not like it.

Starting to like it.

i think its pretty good, in a good location too

The stetbacks will make this a winner.

It's good, but I liked it more before this render came out. I was expecting something a little more exceptional.

^^ +1

^^ +2

I just feel the setbacks will end up looking rather Cityplace with all that glass and spandrel. We will have to wait and see.

^^ +3

The render is a bit of a dissapointment. The stupid protruding box looks like crap.

i think its pretty nice, i agree that the top "cap" should change, something a bit more unique

The set-back crown is the only redeeming quality this tower has. Otherwise its a mishmashed generic glass condo.

well....cp24 just ran a main story now stating the study that condos are taking up the office space in the core....they mentioned the trump and shangri and said "the trump 70 stories and shangri 60 stories" :bash:

hope this office tower goes through now that we need more offices

edit: meant to say that in this thread http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=1423652&page=3

You have to remember that the average Joe and media don't care about floor counts. It's only us skyscraper geeks that know the floor counts of most major buildings and care if people get the numbers correct.

Was hoping it would look more like the base all the way up.

I would prefer a sloping roof at the top than the box.

http://img214.imageshack.us/img214/2974/88scott.jpg

I was hoping it would have more of a stone look than a glass look since I wanted something less typical. Especially considering the location. I don't want anything cheapening the financial district.

Meh

I don't get why everyone is putting this one down. I think she's a beaut! The height is impressive too!

I don't get why everyone is putting this one down. I think she's a beaut! The height is impressive too!

+1 except I'd like to see some detail of the quaility etc

I like the setbacks, I just wish it had a less glass/spandrel and a nice crown on top.

I do like it, but just not at that location. I think it'd go well somewhere to the north (Yorkville/Gay Village area) to break up the monotony of boxy buildings.

I don't get why everyone is putting this one down. I think she's a beaut! The height is impressive too!

It's a handsome building, but people have just had it with all the glass buildings. There's only so much you can take, and it's been done ad nauseam. 5 years ago, this would have been received very favourably, but people are craving some solidity/texture and a break from the sea of glass.

I like it. I like the setbacks too and how the top does not box out. There are a variety of shapes and angles at the top, which is cool.

Posted by Mongo on UT.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v455/mongo62aa/6355697465_f73d239de3_o.jpg

All comes down to materials and quality for me.

Love it for the setbacks alone.

It's a handsome building, but people have just had it with all the glass buildings. There's only so much you can take, and it's been done ad nauseam. 5 years ago, this would have been received very favourably, but people are craving some solidity/texture and a break from the sea of glass.Yup, that's definitely a big part of it.

Also, the design could be much improved if it was just sleek vertical lines without the horizontal interruptions. This could be done with the removal of those awkward protruding boxes.

I do like it, but just not at that location. I think it'd go well somewhere to the north (Yorkville/Gay Village area) to break up the monotony of boxy buildings.+1

The building isn't really bad, just not up to keeping such venerated company. The area has so much solid and classic high and low rise architecture that the standards are set pretty high. I would say the same for Trump actually, since it suffers from a side-by-side comparison with Scotia et al.

Another way of looking at it: due to the drop of in quality, it's everything north of Queen that needs the best architecture to bring it in line with the core.

Posted by Mongo on UT.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v455/mongo62aa/6355697465_f73d239de3_o.jpg

Looks much better in this bigger view; I'm really loving the tapered shape. It
will look marvellous on the skyline, and likely excellent at street level.

this is gonna be an insane construction...how the hell will they accomplish this without destroying the existing building?

I think much of the original building was destroyed long ago by a less sympathetic addition. I imagine they will just remove the facing and reconstruct it when the building is completed, like they did on the Bay Adelaide tower.

If you walk by the original, you will notice how destroyed it is already so no big loss.

Destroyed doesn't mean it can't be rebuilt. The Germans have built complete replicas of old buildings that existed prior to WW2. We can't manage to restore a building that's practically fully intact?

It's not fully intact though. It's just a facade with two additions on it.

We can't manage to restore a building that's practically fully intact?

I think you are mistaking what condition it is in. This building already went through a major conversion, and nothing but a partial shell is left:

http://i82.photobucket.com/albums/j251/dawnd_01/FALL%202011/IMGP3804.jpg

http://i82.photobucket.com/albums/j251/dawnd_01/FALL%202011/IMGP3803.jpg

I don't think anyone would be willing to finance to rebuild a replica of this building. We just have to accept the current condition that it is in and move on to bigger things.

All comes down to materials and quality for me.

i agree,
i think the design is fine (the upper portion of the tower especially, looks epic)...

Another way of looking at it: due to the drop of in quality, it's everything north of Queen that needs the best architecture to bring it in line with the core.Thats fine, but I still don't want to bring the core down to meet it half way. :)

I think you are mistaking what condition it is in. This building already went through a major conversion, and nothing but a partial shell is left:


That wasn't my point. You can have 90% of a building destroyed and still manage a successful end product that resembled the original. It's a cop out to give up on a building so easily.

^^ Well, you could if it were an extremely important civic or national historic building; this tower is not, nor ever was one of those. Even when it was new it was a modest structure; in other words this was never like the original Toronto Star Building. If you can find someone willing to sink multi-millions into recreating the original structure, then I'll be impressed; but in the meantime reality tells me that it is not going to happen. The best that can be expected is what is going to happen; ie. what is left of the original facade will be retained.

Just remember how well they did at Shangri-La. With the right cash anything can be rebuilt.

^^ re-creating a tiny little 1840's simplistic brick Georgian walk-up is quite likely a much simpler proposition than recreating a large late deco tower. I'll bet that what is proposed here for preserving the original face is going to cost a great deal more than the ShangriLa project. . When was the original built? Looks sort of Depression era at a glance. Just to refresh memories, here are pics Andrew posted of it. What we see of the original is, as far as I know, going to be retained. It is pleasant, but it is no Chrysler Building.
As promised earlier some pictures of the building in question. From what I can tell from walking around it today the shell of it is about the only thing that has any historical value left. It looks like half of it got a facade job back in the 80's not to mention two additional floors. IMO it would make a great base for a super tall.

http://i72.photobucket.com/albums/i165/whistlerinToronto/IMG_6587.jpg?t=1305427182

http://i72.photobucket.com/albums/i165/whistlerinToronto/IMG_6588.jpg?t=1305427211

http://i72.photobucket.com/albums/i165/whistlerinToronto/IMG_6591.jpg?t=1305427249

http://i72.photobucket.com/albums/i165/whistlerinToronto/IMG_6592.jpg?t=1305427284

http://i72.photobucket.com/albums/i165/whistlerinToronto/IMG_6594.jpg?t=1305427324

http://i72.photobucket.com/albums/i165/whistlerinToronto/IMG_6597.jpg?t=1305427374

http://i72.photobucket.com/albums/i165/whistlerinToronto/IMG_6598.jpg?t=1305427415

http://i72.photobucket.com/albums/i165/whistlerinToronto/IMG_6600.jpg?t=1305427457

http://i72.photobucket.com/albums/i165/whistlerinToronto/IMG_6599.jpg?t=1305427486

It's no Chyrsler Building, but we have so few significant buildings of this sort in Toronto. If Toronto only had 20-30 Victorian row houses left, we'd make an effort to restore/rebuild them. We should treat this with the same care. Undo the additions/mistakes made and rebuild it while respecting the architecture of the original.

If they have enough money to build a 200m building, they have enough money to restore the base. It's a slippery slope if we allow significant buildings to be lost because one thoughtless developer compromised the building's integrity at one point in its life.

But why would the developer who is willing to build a 200m tower be also willing to restore this building? There is no profit incentive to restore it.

Because they have to spend I think around 4% of their construction budget on art or historical restoration.

It's no Chyrsler Building, but we have so few significant buildings of this sort in Toronto.
.

Well... I'm not sure I see it as significant as you; there are a number of buildings downtown from this period that are more significant, I would say. I would doubt if this one was considered anything extraordinary even when it was new. To me it looks like Depression era very late Art Deco, as in the last gasp of AD before it fell out of favour.
The point is, what is left of it IS being saved and will be a prominent part of the new design. I just can't see this as being an important enough structure to recreate at a cost of hundreds of millions.

I agree that its not significant, but I also agree that we have so few like this. I think what makes this building special is how it changes shape as it rises. The top is nice and there are not a lot of buildings that indent multiple times like that here.

I agree that its not significant, but I also agree that we have so few like this.

Nice to see that comment. I recall you wanting to bulldoze Yonge St. Have thosee feelings changed?

I think the addition will actually improve the deco facade on the building. We have so many deco buildings that in NYC would have just been the bases for something tall.

Nice to see that comment. I recall you wanting to bulldoze Yonge St. Have thosee feelings changed?

:lol: I remember the bulldozing days, too! I got in my first fight here on SSC with Dino and one or two others, over whether the old Victorian building at the corner of Yonge and St Joseph should be saved! :D

I agree that its not significant, but I also agree that we have so few like this.

I don't think anyone is disputing this; what is there is going to be saved, and used on an enhanced tower. We are not losing anything. Isaidso was simply
suggesting the tower should be rebuilt as it looked like when it was new (which I have no idea how it looked).

Well... I'm not sure I see it as significant as you; there are a number of buildings downtown from this period that are more significant, I would say.

That's probably at the heart of our different stance.

^^ as per usual! ;) :cheers:

Nice to see that comment. I recall you wanting to bulldoze Yonge St. Have thosee feelings changed?

Bulldoze Yonge Street? Guess some tastes linger longer on the palette than others. A bit exaggerated there. Historical office building versus Yonge Street town house. Hmm... Let's not compare apples with oranges.

I think after reading more of the comments I may have misunderstood Isaidso's position on the building. I thought he was referring to the new design and not the existing building that occupies the current site. I do still think the old building is nothing special, but it's not at all like the majority of buildings on Yonge Street, south of Bloor. This one occupies a sizeable lot, wide enough for the base of a tower. There are opportunities here to modernize the existing building, if there was a desire to keep it.

Regarding Yonge Street, my position remains the same. The fact is that there are some pretty horendous looking buildings on Yonge Street that need to go (the block of buildings that encompass the 501 - 521 Yonge lot is a good example, thank goodness for that). There are also some pretty beautiful ones that are clearly rare and valuable (which I cited years ago). I support keeping those structures/institutions. I don't support keeping every town house in this era of development boom. Yonge Street is a commercial street and prime land for development, whether residential or business. Eventually it'll all be cleared for new projects. Whether in 5 years or 50 years. Its just inevitable.

So on one hand I agree we should make an effort to preserve historical architecture -- where it merits it. But on the other hand, I don't support doing it with every building based solely on the age factor alone, especially on Yonge Street, a street so pivotal to the future development of our city.

:lol: I remember the bulldozing days, too! I got in my first fight here on SSC with Dino and one or two others, over whether the old Victorian building at the corner of Yonge and St Joseph should be saved! :D


Yes, I remember. I understand that that building holds value and can be restored. I'm not saying we need to get rid of them all, I'm just saying we can't possibly save them all. There are plenty of other downtown streets that have these beautiful Victorian homes and where they're more appropriately located. On a street like Yonge Street, it's just not practical. This is a main street in the city's core. Buildings will be erected and that is a good thing.

Rather than focus on what we don't agree on and begin rehashing old habits, it's best to just acknowledge that we see things differently on this one issue. As I said previously, these forums are interesting and lively because we all have our own opinions.

That building will not change, it's currently a facade with 2 terrible additions, the facade will be reused with a better building on top of it.

88 Scott, Toronto

New higher quality rendering.

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7014/6705129703_7715e9d724_o.jpg

http://88scott.com/

Mmmmmmmmm. Me likey.

I like this one too. Not spectacular, but i didn't really expect it to be.

the final setback unnerves me with its disproportion to the rest of the building, but other than that it looks great!

Very nice!

nothing special, but at least it's not a box

the final setback unnerves me with its disproportion to the rest of the building, but other than that it looks great!

I like the final setback. Maybe it's unnerving to you because we have so few building with set backs like these. I wish we had more.

The final setback/mechanical penthouse is disproportionate. Should be chopped in half.

Love this building. Finally a building to be excited over and not just for its height but for its design. Setbacks are great. T-Dot needs more of these kinds of building and less boxes.

The final setback/mechanical penthouse is disproportionate. Should be chopped in half.

Works like a pretty rad crown to me. Any shorter and we'd have nothing to talk about.

This building is actually great. Hopefully materials will be good, but as long as it doesn't look bland from far, I am happy. People always complain about boxes, at least this isn't one. It has a tremendous amount of set backs, the sky lobby boxes honestly just add a modern element, and the location is great. Finally a bit of work is going to be put into the east side of the CBD.

Works like a pretty rad crown to me. Any shorter and we'd have nothing to talk about.


100% with you. if it was chopped down to work better with proportions it would be safe and boring.

I think it is going to be a stunner, if they clad it properly. It has really grown on me.

I think it is going to be a stunner, if they clad it properly. It has really grown on me.

Yeah, IF. I'm not gonna get my hopes up.

The final setback/mechanical penthouse is disproportionate. Should be chopped in half.

I see that point, but remember that it is going to be surrounded by other buildings, so it will not look so disproportionate in its setting.

I wonder how much a penthouse here will set me back?

202 meters to top of mechanical as per latest development app

That last setback is just too tall. It needs one more setback and maybe a nice crown on top. It just doesn't look right on top.

Yes, I think I'm also going to have to reluctantly join the "Last setback too big and blocky" camp.

I say reluctantly because I hate having to criticize a building that actually shows some real effort and is overall a fairly appealing design.

^^ Count me out of that group.... the top block sets a bold architectural feature that carries enough heft to be visually meaningful from street level.

^^ Yes, but it's disproportionate ;)

^^ Yes, but it's disproportionate ;)

That's what I like about it.

That's what I like about it.

Me too. I think the proportions are bang on.

Yeah the proportions are indeed spot on. My only concern is the building material. It can end up looking slightly kitsch if they cheapen out on the materials.

If they use some quality limestone it could really make this amazing.

Hopefully it will look better than the stone cladding on Trump.

Actually if you look the top portion has a two storey setback on it's East (presumably west as well) side so it is in proportion with the rest of the top. It's just the north and south that jut up 4-5 floors. I makes it look more imposing IMO.


Image hosted on UT.
http://urbantoronto.ca/sites/default/files/imagecache/display-slideshow/images/projects/915/urbantoronto-915-8389.jpg

I'd prefer it without the east and west set back honestly. Put a nice lighting effect in that tall final set back and you've got yourself a winner!

Finally something different from the typical Toronto box.

This has been redesigned (read: cheapened)


http://img810.imageshack.us/img810/2974/88scott.jpg

The sad thing is I'm not sure how the redesign has made it any cheaper. I'm still mystified by why they would make such a awful change.

The sad thing is I'm not sure how the redesign has made it any cheaper.


They can cram a few more units in now.

They can cram a few more units in now.

That explains the shortened setbacks, but why the asymmetrical re-alignment of the crown?

Way to mess with a good design.

http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lgbilzDkVB1qf8yek.gif

WTF? It was beautiful the way it was!

Crying shame. The setbacks were the best part of the project.

Seems like this has been a week of disappointments.

I really hope that this project gets cancelled. It was barely passable for that location prior to the re-design.

Register your complaints here: WebGeneral@ConcertProperties.com

Really? Has it changed that much? Perhaps I am not seeing it; I still like it.

I saw signage up for the project and it's still depicting the previous design. So let's not throw in the towel quite yet.

Last I saw, signage was still up for Sapphire Tower too. ;)

Last I saw, signage was still up for Sapphire Tower too. ;)

Stinson doesn't count!

New rendering for 88 Scott.

Puke. This design went from bad to worse.


http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7190/6894753191_9dd1298834_b.jpg

Let's shop and compare to the old rendering:

88 Scott, Toronto

New higher quality rendering.

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7014/6705129703_7715e9d724_o.jpg

http://88scott.com/
\

the only changes seem to be at the top, and they have simplified the stepback, making it less elaborate. Shame, that.

New rendering for 88 Scott.

Puke. This design went from bad to worse.


http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7190/6894753191_9dd1298834_b.jpg

its not that bad, infact its far nicer than many of the condos we've been getting. I would argue that the design went from good to bad not bad to worse :P

I'd say it went from good to less good, but will still look amazing from ground level. Less stellar stepped profile at the top, though.

I wish we never saw the first render. It really is still a nice looking building.

this is a great looking tower in a nice location for our skyline.

I'd say it went from good to less good, but will still look amazing from ground level. Less stellar stepped profile at the top, though.

lol, i suppose this is what I should have wrote as its more in line with my thinking. Man don't I sound fickle :P But I agree lol. I think its still MUCH nicer than most condo's we've seen over the past few years and well...you can't please everybody.

Demo is set for February, also a nice evening render just for TB ;)


posted by: Buzzbuzzhomes

http://imagecontent.buzzbuzzhome.com/imageSponsors/Original/2012_05_17_12_16_40_ext_hero_night_cam.jpg

^^ Well.... it looks very handsome there! :yes: