This week two new office buildings were announced in Toronto and Vancouver by Allied Properties and Westbank. Both are being designed by Bjarke Ingels Group (BIG). As you would expect, Alex Bozikovic of the Globe and Mail has done a proper writeup, here.
The building in Toronto (called Union Centre) is generally located at 171 Front Street West. It is a revision to a previous proposal for the site that was originally submitted back in 2014. That project got approved by Council, but the implementing by-laws were never enacted.
My favorite image from their rezoning resubmission is this one here:
It clearly shows the big idea behind the project, which is to push all of the building's elevator shafts to its north elevation. This opens up its large floor plates to the south, but also allows for a kind of elevator equalizer show on the outside of the building. The cabs are intended to be lit and the shafts are intended to be built using clear glazing. That's what you're seeing above.
I don't think we have enough fun with building lights here in Toronto. So I was pretty pumped to see this get proposed. What are your thoughts?
Rendering by Bjarke Ingels Group
This morning I went through some of the floor plans for King Toronto, which are now up on BuzzBuzzHome. In case you’re wondering, they are currently showing an average price of $1604 per square foot.
Here is a 1 bedroom + atelier:
And here is a 2 bedroom + atelier:
Right away you’ll probably notice a few things.
There are no dens in these plans. They have been replaced with ateliers, which sounds cool. I want my own atelier where I make things. But it may also be a clever way to get around calling them studies or nooks.
A lot of people in the industry have been commenting on how they’ve included the exterior living space in the calculation of total area. That seems logical to me, especially for a project like this where the terraces form such an integral part of the architecture.
The other thing I noticed is that the buildings are, actually, being referred to as mountains. This has been part of the project’s design narrative since the beginning. So I like the consistency. The above plans are for suites within the “east mountain.”
But what I wanted to ask all of you today is whether you find the addition of a 3D plan helpful. It’s obviously not new, but it is still fairly uncommon, at least in this market. Do you think it’s worth it?
Things are busy right now as we get ready to unveil Junction House this fall and so I’m a bit behind on my news and reading.
I just finished reading Alex Bozikovic’s Globe article on BIG’s new KING Toronto project (official name). It is an interesting piece about creating villages and a sense of community in new developments – something that Bjarke Ingels has been focused on for many years.
Below are a few renderings of the project. I’m excited for this one. And as I said before on the blog, I am sure it will be precedent setting in a number of ways.
This week two new office buildings were announced in Toronto and Vancouver by Allied Properties and Westbank. Both are being designed by Bjarke Ingels Group (BIG). As you would expect, Alex Bozikovic of the Globe and Mail has done a proper writeup, here.
The building in Toronto (called Union Centre) is generally located at 171 Front Street West. It is a revision to a previous proposal for the site that was originally submitted back in 2014. That project got approved by Council, but the implementing by-laws were never enacted.
My favorite image from their rezoning resubmission is this one here:
It clearly shows the big idea behind the project, which is to push all of the building's elevator shafts to its north elevation. This opens up its large floor plates to the south, but also allows for a kind of elevator equalizer show on the outside of the building. The cabs are intended to be lit and the shafts are intended to be built using clear glazing. That's what you're seeing above.
I don't think we have enough fun with building lights here in Toronto. So I was pretty pumped to see this get proposed. What are your thoughts?
Rendering by Bjarke Ingels Group
This morning I went through some of the floor plans for King Toronto, which are now up on BuzzBuzzHome. In case you’re wondering, they are currently showing an average price of $1604 per square foot.
Here is a 1 bedroom + atelier:
And here is a 2 bedroom + atelier:
Right away you’ll probably notice a few things.
There are no dens in these plans. They have been replaced with ateliers, which sounds cool. I want my own atelier where I make things. But it may also be a clever way to get around calling them studies or nooks.
A lot of people in the industry have been commenting on how they’ve included the exterior living space in the calculation of total area. That seems logical to me, especially for a project like this where the terraces form such an integral part of the architecture.
The other thing I noticed is that the buildings are, actually, being referred to as mountains. This has been part of the project’s design narrative since the beginning. So I like the consistency. The above plans are for suites within the “east mountain.”
But what I wanted to ask all of you today is whether you find the addition of a 3D plan helpful. It’s obviously not new, but it is still fairly uncommon, at least in this market. Do you think it’s worth it?
Things are busy right now as we get ready to unveil Junction House this fall and so I’m a bit behind on my news and reading.
I just finished reading Alex Bozikovic’s Globe article on BIG’s new KING Toronto project (official name). It is an interesting piece about creating villages and a sense of community in new developments – something that Bjarke Ingels has been focused on for many years.
Below are a few renderings of the project. I’m excited for this one. And as I said before on the blog, I am sure it will be precedent setting in a number of ways.
One remark from the article that stood out for me is this one here:
Still: The design breaks a lot of rules. Which is why it took two years of difficult negotiations with city planners to reach approvals. “We wanted it to be quieter,” says Lynda MacDonald, a senior Toronto planner who was involved in overseeing the project. “It’s a very large project, and we wanted to make sure it respected the character of King Street.”
I am often asked why we don’t see more innovation in architecture and real estate. There are a number of reasons for that. One of them is risk. Development is in many ways a game of risk mitigation.
But another reason is that when you try and do something unconventional that disrupts the status quo, you also call into question the typical planning criteria used to evaluate projects. And that may slow you down.
Alex accurately points out in his article that we are used to doing things around here in one of two ways:
The King Street project is also an ambitious experiment with urban design. There are basically two species of tower in Toronto: a midrise slab of six to 10 storeys, which steps back at the top; and a “tower-and-podium,” a model borrowed from Vancouver that combines a fat, squared-off base (or “podium”) with a tall, skinny residential tower. Both can work, but can also create the big-box blandness that many people dislike about new urban housing.
None of this is to suggest that we should ignore the character of a particular area. It is critical and I believe that KING Toronto has been mindful of that.
But I also firmly believe in ambitious city building and I think there’s no question that KING Toronto is doing exactly that.
Images: Hayes Davison via Dezeen and courtesy of Westbank
One remark from the article that stood out for me is this one here:
Still: The design breaks a lot of rules. Which is why it took two years of difficult negotiations with city planners to reach approvals. “We wanted it to be quieter,” says Lynda MacDonald, a senior Toronto planner who was involved in overseeing the project. “It’s a very large project, and we wanted to make sure it respected the character of King Street.”
I am often asked why we don’t see more innovation in architecture and real estate. There are a number of reasons for that. One of them is risk. Development is in many ways a game of risk mitigation.
But another reason is that when you try and do something unconventional that disrupts the status quo, you also call into question the typical planning criteria used to evaluate projects. And that may slow you down.
Alex accurately points out in his article that we are used to doing things around here in one of two ways:
The King Street project is also an ambitious experiment with urban design. There are basically two species of tower in Toronto: a midrise slab of six to 10 storeys, which steps back at the top; and a “tower-and-podium,” a model borrowed from Vancouver that combines a fat, squared-off base (or “podium”) with a tall, skinny residential tower. Both can work, but can also create the big-box blandness that many people dislike about new urban housing.
None of this is to suggest that we should ignore the character of a particular area. It is critical and I believe that KING Toronto has been mindful of that.
But I also firmly believe in ambitious city building and I think there’s no question that KING Toronto is doing exactly that.
Images: Hayes Davison via Dezeen and courtesy of Westbank
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog