Looks as though, in the first rendering posted a few pages back, they might just paint the Star building white. I guess they had a peek down at the other end of Queen's Quay and liked what they saw.
 
We in Toronto have an"embarrassment of riches". Only a city that has as many buildings going up as we do would dare the crap on this project like some of the comments I've read here.

Personally I think this latest rendering looks fantastic. It's very creative, very original and daring while leaving a large area available for what will be a dynamic plaza eventually. Well done and what a fantastic addition to Toronto's waterfront!
 
Big Daddy said:
We in Toronto have an"embarrassment of riches". Only a city that has as many buildings going up as we do would dare the crap on this project like some of the comments I've read here.

Personally I think this latest rendering looks fantastic. It's very creative, very original and daring while leaving a large area available for what will be a dynamic plaza eventually. Well done and what a fantastic addition to Toronto's waterfront!
Click to expand...

Not trying to sound facetious, but perhaps you or someone else can give a quick (100wds or less) Architecture 101 rundown of why this proposal is 'original, daring, and dynamic'. Twenty years ago when my 10-year-old self was fascinated by tall buildings I would've been drooling over this project. But now, aside from its height/density, I don't see much in the way of daring. Granted, I'm nowhere near the architecture aficionado I'd like to be. So perhaps if someone describes the merits you could use more basic terminology. But right now, to me, it looks kinda...boring (except the park, which looks fantastic). Where's the colour, or boldness, or prominence?
 
khristopher said:
Is the Church St. underpass part of the meeting as wellL?
Click to expand...

It was part of the first presentation, the Lower Yonge Precinct Plan. It was fist described as something like "blue sky 50 year plan", then later as "not before 15 or 20 years" by the report's authors. A couple of DRP members said that it should be top-of-the-list of local upgrades. Others felt it wasn't likely because of the presumed cost.

innsertnamehere said:
any word on the updated floor count?
Click to expand...

North side: 95 for the tallest tower, 80 for the second tallest, 65 for the third tallest. South side: This was considered too unresolved for anyone to really bother looking at in detail, just saying "keep working on it", but it was presented as a single, stepped building of shifting volumes of about 30, 18, and 13 storeys.

Don't get too hung up on the number of floors yet though, things are still somewhat fluid here.

42
 
ttk77 said:
A bit of wishful thinking for a park to be built on the LCBO lands, and I think a lot of the visual appeal that they're proposing here would be lost without it.
Click to expand...


Right then....the best part of this proposal is the imaginary park on an adjacent property (that appears to have a functioning version of the Four Seasons fountain).
 
Automation Gallery said:
Right, it will look more like a glass box by the time the field day is over:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

As if it isn't a series of glass boxes stacked atop on another now. Can't help you if can't see past the wrapping.

44 North said:
Agreed, I find it a bit messy and weak. I was hoping for something a little more pronounced - particularly considering that absolute massiveness of this proposal. I dunno, perhaps something on a scale of engaging prominence like First Canadian, Scotia Plaza, or what I hope The One on Bloor West will become.
Click to expand...

Not necessarily in said styles - but certainly in that's the spirit one should apply to this site. Let loose and show me something truly spectacular instead of rehashing the tried and true and asking for an inordinate amount of density at the same time.

AoD
 
Big Daddy said:
We in Toronto have an"embarrassment of riches". Only a city that has as many buildings going up as we do would dare the crap on this project like some of the comments I've read here.
Click to expand...
For what it's worth, I think this proposal is good, but not great. Lest you think I'm being picky, have a look at some of the buildings being planned and built in Vancouver right now.

1133_1.jpg

Trump Vancouver, Arthur Erickson

Beach-+-Howe1.png

Vancouver House, BIG

vancouver-4.jpg

1550 Alberni, Kengo Kuma

1500-west-georgia-ole-scheeren-27.jpg

1500 West Georgia, Ole Scheeren

Granted, the economics are a bit different there, but I don't think it's out of line to demand world-class architecture for this site. Is the current design really in the same class as the designs above?
 
smably said:
For what it's worth, I think this proposal is good, but not great. Lest you think I'm being picky, have a look at some of the buildings being planned and built in Vancouver right now.

Granted, the economics are a bit different there, but I don't think it's out of line to demand world-class architecture for this site. Is the current design really in the same class as the designs above?
Click to expand...

I would say even those examples are too conservative (curtain wall and all) - they won't stand out that much in the background filled with run of the mill glass towers.

AoD
 
Really ? That one is the one I like the most.

I do wish toronto had some twisting towers. But I do think this is a nice design. It's pinnacle. To be honest I am surprised it's not more watered down
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top