Agreed. All I want is one Twisty Tower (tm) on the waterfront, and then I can die a happy man.
 
It's 2016. Corkscrews have been played out. London Shard makes a great monument but, as a functional building, it's a complete waste of space. Maybe if Pinnacle could sell condo units for the price of entire buildings.

That said, I'd trade for the Swedish tower. The residents can come too. It needs space though. It wouldn't be fair to stick it in a multi-towered masterplan. Maybe as the Pier 27 tower.
 
Yeah, the twisty towers Google Image binge was more reflective of Google's search algos than any outright desire of mine to have a curvy tower on the site. My point was simply that, in my personal opinion, the current plans for this site leave something to be desired—I don't think the finished product would be a tower that is in any way iconic (or would appear in future searches for leading skyscraper architecture).

Okay, I fibbed; a couple of these are still twisty. I guess I do like twisty.

In seriousness, though, why—why—can't Toronto developers be a little more daring/ambitious? It really is frustrating.

upload_2016-3-29_11-19-2.png


^ https://www.architonic.com/en/project/tange-associates-mode-gakuen-cocoon-tower/5100343

upload_2016-3-29_11-19-32.png

^ http://www.wallpaper.com/architectu...nouvels-addition-to-new-yorks-soaring-skyline

upload_2016-3-29_11-20-32.png

^ http://www.archdaily.com/779178/these-are-the-worlds-25-tallest-buildings

upload_2016-3-29_11-20-50.png

^ https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/cf/20/ee/cf20eef43b2dac57652acf7fd77703a3.jpg
 

Attachments

  • upload_2016-3-29_11-19-2.png
    upload_2016-3-29_11-19-2.png
    740 KB · Views: 1,163
  • upload_2016-3-29_11-19-32.png
    upload_2016-3-29_11-19-32.png
    521.7 KB · Views: 1,176
  • upload_2016-3-29_11-20-32.png
    upload_2016-3-29_11-20-32.png
    980.5 KB · Views: 1,133
  • upload_2016-3-29_11-20-50.png
    upload_2016-3-29_11-20-50.png
    448.5 KB · Views: 1,118
For me, it's not necessarily the architecture but, the overall scope of the master plan that leaves something to be desired. Note: nearly every single on of those towers is a singular development with plenty of room to breathe. Urban form takes a back seat. Some are just downright gimmicky.

I don't necessarily agree Toronto's condo developers aren't daring or ambitious when it comes to design. (so so on materials) It's just the market we have. Most markets lean towards the luxury end. They also may have poor labour laws which drastically lower construction costs or are backed by the crown. I don't favour structural expressionism over a good modern design either.

We have to be real. Pigs will fly and the stars will fall long before a Manhattan supertall (MoMa) sees the light of day in Toronto. The real estate value projections for some of these towers are approaching $5 billion. You know what you could buy here with 5 billion USD?
 
ADRM said:
In seriousness, though, why—why—can't Toronto developers be a little more daring/ambitious? It really is frustrating.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately the reason is very simple.... Up until now they haven't had too! They can build a box sell all it's units for a large profit without having to spend millions on making the design anything remarkable!
 
maestro said:
For me, it's not necessarily the architecture but, the overall scope of the master plan that leaves something to be desired. Note: nearly every single on of those towers is a singular development with plenty of room to breathe. Urban form takes a back seat. Some are just downright gimmicky.

I don't necessarily agree Toronto's condo developers aren't daring or ambitious when it comes to design. (so so on materials) It's just the market we have. Most markets lean towards the luxury end. They also may have poor labour laws which drastically lower construction costs or are backed by the crown. I don't favour structural expressionism over a good modern design either.

We have to be real. Pigs will fly and the stars will fall long before a Manhattan supertall (MoMa) sees the light of day in Toronto. The real estate value projections for some of these towers are approaching $5 billion. You know what you could buy here with 5 billion USD?
Click to expand...

But "it's just the market we have" doesn't hold up. Look at other cities of a similar or smaller size with much more interesting architecture—it's simply not true that Toronto doesn't have the economy or wealth to support interesting building design (as is partly evidenced by what of it we do have). $5B in real estate sales isn't necessary to do something great; remember, too, that acquisition and building costs are significantly higher in cities such as New York. The land acquisition costs for *part* of the land at the residential project at 432 Park Ave., for instance, were over $400 million. Similarly, the cost for 30 Hudson Yards—in a previously derelict part of Manhattan—were nearly $200 million, and Related had to build a $721 million platform just to construct a $3 billion tower atop it. Toronto developers simply don't face costs at that scale for similar projects—Mizrahi paid a reported $300 million for the lot where the One is to be located, one of the most prominent in the city. $5 billion-worth of sales aren't necessary (or possible) in Toronto because the costs aren't as high.

@FMCS makes a good point: Developers can (and do) settle for building large boxes because they can. It's their choice not to leave a legacy of any sort, where developers all over the world (and in Toronto in some cases) choose to make something special. I just wish more would opt for the latter, and I think any and all forms of public support for that sort of thing can't hurt.
 
Maybe this is a cultural stereotype but Toronto residents are also more let's just say "practical". Toronto investors were demanding 7-8% returns when most of the world long shifted to 5 then 4 then 2 then -1%. We are catching up but frankly those New York apartments are where capital goes to die. In general all major world cities are now places for capital to go to die. Manhattan is now a place where you invest 1 dollar and get 50 cents back.
 
ADRM said:
But "it's just the market we have" doesn't hold up. Look at other cities of a similar or smaller size with much more interesting architecture—it's simply not true that Toronto doesn't have the economy or wealth to support interesting building design (as is partly evidenced by what of it we do have). $5B in real estate sales isn't necessary to do something great; remember, too, that acquisition and building costs are significantly higher in cities such as New York. The land acquisition costs for *part* of the land at the residential project at 432 Park Ave., for instance, were over $400 million. Similarly, the cost for 30 Hudson Yards—in a previously derelict part of Manhattan—were nearly $200 million, and Related had to build a $721 million platform just to construct a $3 billion tower atop it. Toronto developers simply don't face costs at that scale for similar projects—Mizrahi paid a reported $300 million for the lot where the One is to be located, one of the most prominent in the city. $5 billion-worth of sales aren't necessary (or possible) in Toronto because the costs aren't as high.

@FMCS makes a good point: Developers can (and do) settle for building large boxes because they can. It's their choice not to leave a legacy of any sort, where developers all over the world (and in Toronto in some cases) choose to make something special. I just wish more would opt for the latter, and I think any and all forms of public support for that sort of thing can't hurt.
Click to expand...

City size is irrelevant. Interesting is non specific. Please provide examples of these markets that are producing, on average, better, privately developed, architecture for the entry to mid level range. ( materials such as window wall vs curtain wall notwithstanding)

Cost of land is only part of the equation. None of these towers would be have been contemplated if not for a market willing to pay $50 to $120 million for an apartment. You wouldn't have the expensive density transfers or razor thing massing to extend a FSI of about 20 to 400 metres in height. By no means is Toronto cheap to buy property either which is why our mid ranged product costs more than the typical luxury offerings in most US markets so price point (as a comparison) only takes you so far.

Interesting is fair description for Miami. Good, however, is not.
 
Last edited:
I of course accept that "interesting", as with "beauty" or any other subjective descriptor is vague and difficult to define. But, on aggregate, you'll find very few people who would posit that Toronto's contemporary buildings on the whole are architecturally more interesting (regardless of precise definition) than those in, say, Chicago, Barcelona, Madrid, Copenhagen, Stockholm, Berlin, Prague, Milan, etc.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top