[scarberiankhatru]

"I find it perplexing how in the course of this whole thread, the matter of how the tower's going to disrupt the Bay Street "canyon" has essentially come and gone without a peep..."

Hey, I think they should keep the building with the blue bricks. I've always liked it and its green counterpart, the chemistry building (Lash Miller) at Willcocks & St. George. I can live with setbacks on select big buildings like TD Centre, but the little ones need to stay in line and behave if the canyon's gonna work.

"Having it built slightly farther from Bay St will make for a nicer sidewalk (which is so crazy-busy during the day)."

What good is a sidewalk that is widened for 20 metres and then goes back to being narrow? That's the kind of thinking that gave us the St. George "pedestrianization" mess.

 

[officedweller]

The Trump condo/hotel will add a street wall at the sidewalk just across Adelaide - so it won't be so bad.

 

[jayomatic]

I agree that its an attractive building. I'm sure its going to be a nice glassy box. I just wish it was bit more innovative.

 

[Mike in TO]

I assume the only requirement is to create a building that is cheap to build

Considering all the extra expenses to achieve LEED standards this will by no means be a 'cheap to build' structure. The internal systems to achieve certain performance targets are very expensive.

I hope they don't use cheap glass on this one!

Once again, to meet energy efficient performance requirements for LEED standards the glass will be of very high quality.

While it has been clear by this thread that many people are less then thrilled about the design, lets not start tossing around comments like the building is "cheap". Just because the building envelop is not some fancy shape does not mean the building will be cheap. I would expect the materials to be top notch and the internal building systems will be far beyond any other major office tower ever built in Toronto. For any developer to achieve LEED standards in a project this size they will be spending a lot of money on items that are not immediately visible to the casual person on the street who finds boxes boring. Yes architecture is important (As a fan of the TD centre and CCW, which is my favorite tower in Toronto, I personally don't have a problem with well executed boxes - but that's me) - but I would suggest that the performance of the building in terms of energy efficiency and environmental impact is just as important if not more important in the 21st century. So let's not all jump on the wasted opportunity bandwagon as this is a very positive development for the CBD.

 

[andreapalladio]

It's buildings that come right up to the street that create good streetwalls and canyon effects (see my NYC thread)... which is why the Bay St. condo strip further north fails the urbanity test and feels so desolate. By no means a fatal blow to the area, but still unfortunate... and a little less urban.

Nonsense. Not even in New York does every building on every street have a curtain wall that meets the propertly line. Or do the Seagram Building, Lever House, the Lipstick Building, Lincoln Centre, the Grace Building, 9 West 57th Street, &c., &c., &c, all add up to make Manhattan a non-urban island?

You'll recall as well that New Yorkers were so horrified by the canyon effect created on Wall Street in the early 20th Century that the setback requirements were imposed to keep it from happening again.

 

[urbanboyto]

I do agree with the concerns about the street wall. That stretch of Bay St is actually one of my favourite parts of Toronto. It has a real kind of 30's/40's urbanism about, something that is unique in Toronto and I would hate to see it be degraded by one of those awful 80's style setbacks.

 

[Transportfan]

Why don't they just use the stump for the new building?

 

[andreapalladio]

The plans for the complex have changed twice since it was built. It's not in the right location, or size.

 

[Sir Novelty Fashion]

You'll recall as well that New Yorkers were so horrified by the canyon effect created on Wall Street in the early 20th Century that the setback requirements were imposed to keep it from happening again.

And rightly so! Wall Street is an impressive curio, but imagine if the whole island was like that. Totally claustrophobic.

 

[unimaginative2]

There are so many interesting office towers going up these days around the world, and it's a shame, I think, that Toronto isn't really getting one in this boom. Swiss Re and the Hearst Building, among others, come to mind.

It seems to me like the architectural quality of Toronto's office buildings seems to decline with every boom. First Mies and I.M. Pei, then Edward Durell Stone, then WZMH and SOM...

 

[adma]

and I would hate to see it be degraded by one of those awful 80's style setbacks.

Actually, the 80s were probably the *least* likely time for setbacks on the Bay canyon. (Proof of that: the addition to 330 Bay, where the only "setback" is the waterfall-effect to the north; but, it all holds the streetline nevertheless...)

 

[adma]

It seems to me like the architectural quality of Toronto's office buildings seems to decline with every boom. First Mies and I.M. Pei, then Edward Durell Stone, then WZMH and SOM...

Boomwise, Stone would be better off bunched up w/Mies + Pei, chronologically speaking. And WZMH: remember that w/Royal Bank Plaza, they had the advantage of being "homegrown" (as opposed to haughty alien outsiders like Mies/Pei/Stone) and "breaking the boring box" (this was the late-modern-and-cusp-of-pomo-less-is-a-bore 70s, remember) It's only in the Scotia-Plaza-era 80s that we truly became terminally jaded with WZMH--in the 70s, they still had that "Dickinson's successors" edge about them. And as for SOM: remember that at BCE, the office buildings (for all their picturesque skyline) were second banana to Calatrava...

 

[bizorky]

Does someone actually die if they become "terminally jaded?"

 

[urbanboyto]

Actually, the 80s were probably the *least* likely time for setbacks on the Bay canyon. (Proof of that: the addition to 330 Bay, where the only "setback" is the waterfall-effect to the north; but, it all holds the streetline nevertheless...

Perhaps I should have said 70's?

 

[tudararms]

SD2:You think the TD Towers are boring?

I'd say that just because a tower is boxy doesn't mean it's boring. The TD complex is comprised of what are probably Toronto's best towers.


- To each is own SD2. To me, a box is a box is a box. I mean, I do understand what some see in the TD Centre, and I myself don't hate it, but enough is enough. We've done this style to death. I was hoping to see some innovation at this site, and dare I say a little pizazz or drama. It is an amazing site for a new commmercial project, highly visible with high traffic. The glass box proposed has little interaction with its surroundings and would look better along a suburban highway. Also, hasn't it been proven yet that a sexy, innovative and popular building can command higher rental rates or higher sales prices? In other words, wouldn't it be in the interest of the developer to make this a landmark site with lots of press coverage and exposure?? Square buildings with curtain walls of glass just don't cut it.