Hopefully they at least clad the mechanical box in blue glass to help obscure it. God knows Toronto architects know how to make things that blend in with the sky.

Can't they extend it south a bit so it's at least symmetrical?

Agreed that the mechanical box could be better, but I'm not as bothered by it as I expected to be. It doesn't look like some afterthought, but rather a relatively well-proportioned crown. In any event the gently rounded corners framed by red fins make this one a winner in my books. It kind of...

I can't comment on how these look at grade, but honestly these towers look wonderful - clean and unmuddled yet full of whimsy. We were driving from past Mississauga a few days ago, and these were the only towers where I've ever heard my children say "wow, cool". That's what makes something iconic.

The details on this one truly suck up close but I actually don't mind it from a distance (which is where I'll view it from 99% of the time). A relatively clean & distinct shape, a clear expression evoking floating squares, warm earth tones that reflect the neighbourhood around it, integrated...

Wouldn't be cool if the wave pattern continued across the entire facade instead of only one third for no reason? It's almost as though the architect is saying, "Here's a sample of what I imagined but I'm not allowed to block too many windows." So instead we get this tepid, asymmetrical compromise.

It looks like a bunch of different ideas inelegantly glommed on to each other, as though they gave one architect the north side, another architect the south side, then switched to a third architect half way up. A setback here, a balcony there, a random cut out here, some glass over there, and...

Well at least it's got some colour...

In absence of any kind of coherent design gesture, I think it's their shortcut to creating visual interest. In reality it makes for nothing but a disjointed mess.

I think tallest exposed/visible mechanical box in North America and tallest balcony in North America are more appropriate claims for us.

It's these kinds of projects which has made my interest in following developments in this city wane over the years. When a major global developer like Oxford Properties, which has track record of building excellent towers all over the world, shows this kind of cynical disdain for their own home...

It's actually not the same operators so that's quite the co-incidence!

What a shame. Nothing ruins a design for me more than a big clunky mechanical box that looks tacked on to the top of a tower. Makes the whole thing look ramshackle. I can't imagine it's much of a challenge in terms of architecture or cost to obscure them with a parapet.

It gives me the impression of an office tower that could have been built in 1975, and I mean that as a compliment.

Do we know if the crown will include a parapet to hide the mechanical box?

Do we know if this intended to be more of a streetcar like St. Clair, or more of an LRT like Eglinton?

That's odd... based on the renders, I'd expected the setback to be more pronounced.

Correct. The former - no question.

They're certainly not going to sell units at Church & Queen at the same rate that they could at Yorkville. Shouldn't we be expecting quality more in line with something like Time & Space here?

This reminds me of an overly busy and slightly deflated Marina City. It's going to come down to the execution/materials.