SkyscraperCity banner
1 - 19 of 19 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,776 Posts
Lanterra Developments
Page + Steele/IBI Group Architects


Posted on April 5, 2010 by Mike in TO on UT.

There has been a settlement between the city and the developer that has been signed off on by the OMB. The original proposal included 25s, 26s & a 31s towers, 7,500- sq.m. of commercial space and a number of townhouses. An agreement has been reached to reduce the height and density of the project, while also including a minimum of 6%three or more bedrooms in the project. The total number of residential units has been reduced from 1,700 to 1,500 and the heights of the towers dropped to 15s, 20s and 24s. The floorplates for the towers were also reduced, from 800-to-750-sq.m. Under Sec 37 approximately $3 million can be allocated for a new daycare centre and seniors’ centre, public art or improvements to the existing nearby park - details haven't been finalized.


Posted in May 2008 by waterloowarrior on UT.





http://www.google.ca/imgres?imgurl=http://savelblogs.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/Treviso-Condominiums.jpg&imgrefurl=http://savelblogs.com/treviso-condominiums-at-dufferin-lawrence&usg=__lKJgyjnj3G6u5217lmtXdr1mfKA=&h=305&w=510&sz=72&hl=en&start=0&sig2=BXEtKP8z_d9ExVjCq07eBg&zoom=1&tbnid=EmoAtgXT1pDAnM:&tbnh=106&tbnw=178&ei=v7XXTL6nDMHLnAf1q_DvCQ&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dtreviso%2Bcondos%2Btoronto%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26client%3Dfirefox-a%26hs%3DuD3%26sa%3DN%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla:en-US:eek:fficial%26biw%3D1047%26bih%3D432%26tbs%3Disch:1&um=1&itbs=1&iact=rc&dur=206&oei=YbXXTPqSIcSinAeAorGnBQ&esq=19&page=1&ndsp=10&ved=1t:429,r:3,s:0&tx=83&ty=42
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,681 Posts
Hmmm our first estate agent spam in a while. He or she should stick around to read how we feel about this development.

The after is a slight improvement but still a dull design.
 

·
Blue Collar Bigwig
Joined
·
1,905 Posts
Hmmm our first estate agent spam in a while. He or she should stick around to read how we feel about this development.

The after is a slight improvement but still a dull design.
It's dull, but safe. Still a handsome complex IMO. It's not like Dufferin + Lawrence exactly needs an Absolute World type development.
 

·
Blue Collar Bigwig
Joined
·
1,905 Posts
^^ DUN DUN DUNNNNN
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
38,915 Posts
Holy yuck! Where are these developers from? Primitive garbage like this shouldn't be allowed in this city. :eek:hno:
 

·
insertoronto
Joined
·
4,035 Posts
what? really? large portions of Chicago's highrises in the last decade have been false-Historic (and bad ones at that), and suburban highrises like these are unheard of. if this was chicago, these units would have been single family homes sprawling over farms.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,681 Posts
what? really? large portions of Chicago's highrises in the last decade have been false-Historic (and bad ones at that), and suburban highrises like these are unheard of. if this was chicago, these units would have been single family homes sprawling over farms.

Such as? Even their mediocre stuff puts most of our good stuff to shame. Chicago is a city where architects make much more of an effort being surrounded by so many outstanding examples of architecture. Architects in Chicago put their careers on the line in that city when they design a structure. If you build poorly you're easily shunned out of town. In Toronto the developers dictate what gets built at the end of the day and too often the design put forward by the architect firm is watered down so the developer can make more money.

My 3rd trip to Chicago and this time I really tried to be more critical and not come back jaded but it's so tough to do so when I see what we consider here as good compared to what they see as the norm. I'd take their current norm any day over almost anything considered good in this country. We really need to hold the developers to a much higher standard. I kind of want this boom to end for a few years until we can rid of the OMB and finally do things right.

Case and point is their River Walk master planned development. A huge parcel of land bought by a consortium of developers and divided amongst different architectural firms to design the towers and street levels. Think of it like City Place done well.
 

·
insertoronto
Joined
·
4,035 Posts
Yes, that was done well, and you should compare it to cityplace, not a random highrise in the middle of the burbs. Chicago has problems. They actually closed a metro line in the 1990's, are facing one of the highest murder rates in the US, plummeting population, inner city facing similar problems as Detroit, etc. Their Ritz Carleton is false-historic and looks like crap. The Waldorf Astoria that got cancelled half-way up was also false historic, and it was going to be something like 1,100 feet tall.

 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,681 Posts
The building you show has very high quality finishes and attentions to detail we don't often get here. That looks like a rare example of good quality we see such as with One Bedford. For every 1 bad tower Chicago builds, Toronto probably builds about 30. Don't get me wrong we're heading in the right direction but we have a long way to go still. I think every politician and planner should spend a week in Chicago and find out how we can implement their approach to how large scale developments should be done. Almost any forumer here who has spent time in the loop will agree that it's a near perfect example of urban planning and design. Had Mrs. O'Leary's cow not knocked over the oil lamp burning Chicago to the ground it may have turned out much different for the Windy City. East Bay Front and the Docklands may be our only remaining chance to do things right the first time.

Also, I'm not talking about the social problems facing the city of Chicago, I'm comparing our way of thinking about built forms in our city vs theirs. BTW they are currently expanding three of their metro lines.
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
38,915 Posts
I do think we get used to local norms after a while. I remember when I first moved here I didn't find the architectural standards very good at all. Things are getting steadily better, but buildings I would have lambasted 10 years ago I now accept grudgingly with a shrug.

Familiarity breeds acceptance while travel tends to readjust one's compass. Design has not historically been something Toronto ever cared about so we're coming off a very low base. It speaks volumes that we're only now paying attention to what our public realm looks like. Bloor Street Improvement Project? Before it was completely off the radar.

Toronto is beautifying at a rapid clip, but it will take another generation before an emphasis on design becomes the norm rather than the exception. It will take nearly as long before architects who put out sub-standard designs won't find work. We still see lots of low brow stuff because we accept it. That said, we should take solace in the direction we're headed. We're a city that built L Tower. Lots more like that is on the way.
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
38,915 Posts
True, but I'd much rather concentrate on what Toronto builds. I also think we should emphasize quality over quantity. A huge skyline might look great in a postcard and speak to the scale and power of our city, but it will largely be for nought if the quality isn't there.
 
1 - 19 of 19 Posts
Top