News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
A Message to Our Readers
 9.5K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
EarthCam Time-Lapse Documents Rafael Viñoly-Designed New Stanford Hospital Construction
 40K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
Resort Town
 5.4K     0 

^In this case, probably the opposite. I'd bet this redesign was at the request of the lead tenant.

Let's look on the bright side - how many glass curtain wall skyscrapers are there in the financial district? How many blue towers are there? This tower won't blend in.

Let's all look forward to the Ritz Carlton and its distinctive design. It'll be just as tall and a lot more prominent.
 
Not even in New York does every building on every street have a curtain wall that meets the propertly line.
Click to expand...

True, but not all of New York is equal.

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?
Click to expand...

There's nothing wrong with those buildings, but for me, continuous streetwalls that meet the property line make for much more interesting environments, which is why I like downtown Manhattan more than midtown. And for a city like Toronto that has nothing else like the Bay St. canyon, a lot of care should be taken in developing the area.

And then there's the issue of no more street level retail...
 
- 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.
Click to expand...

But not all boxes are created equal. The TD Centre towers (the originals) are among the best towers you'll find anywhere.

The new tower may not be the most exciting, but at the very least it should fit in nicely and be a nice, if not spectacular addition.
 
SD2: "But not all boxes are created equal. The TD Centre towers (the originals) are among the best towers you'll find anywhere"

I agree SD2. It's been done and done well already, and it's also been done less well ad nauseum in this city - which is why I say that another project in this vein, in a prominent site with so much potential, just seems like a wasted opportunity.
 
I think people are overreacting to this. This tower is handsome enough and will fit in just fine. Look at what exists now on the skyline. Part of what makes the skyline work is that the buildings aren't radical shapes and materials and they tend to compliment each other by being somewhat similar to each other.

It's more practical in the long run to build something slightly more conservative that will actually get filled and stay filled. I was discussing the Petronas towers (Malaysia) with an uncle of mine who was just there, and he said that there are many empty floors in the middle of those towers. Same with the empire state building. They are tourist attractions. This tower is certainly not.

As for the language used on the website, of course it will be filled with exaggeration. This goes without saying. What are they going to say? "This tower doesn't really stand out, but it will look decent enough in the skyline. It's tall, but not super tall, and its design is pretty handsome, if not breathtaking. We're pretty sure we can rent this bad boy out, though. That's the main thing."
 
"This tower doesn't really stand out, but it will look decent enough in the skyline. It's tall, but not super tall, and its design is pretty handsome, if not breathtaking. We're pretty sure we can rent this bad boy out, though. That's the main thing."

I think this is exactly the poetic of the architecture. No one would suggest that the building itself is not an exciting addition to the city centre and I always stress my opinion that ultimately it is the human activity that a building facilitates that superscedes any architectural or aesthetic concerns. But analyze the above statement and see what it says about the statement the architecture is making. The design smacks of uncertainty. The building is not a box because it boldly wants to be a box but because it is afraid not to be. Will people like me?

As I mentioned before there is nothing wrong with uncertain or let's say slightly above average architecture. I think however that some people are disappointed because they sense a disconnect between the architectural aspirations of the building and the prominence of the building both in terms of the physical location of the site and its importance in the mental landscape of the city.
 
The building is not a box because it boldly wants to be a box but because it is afraid not to be. Will people like me?
Click to expand...

The building is not yet built, and yet it thinks and feels? That is quite a feat.
 
Tdot: I tend to agree with most of what you are saying.

I think we have to remember a few things about this development.

First, it is a commercial property that, first and foremost, must be rentable. Value is key here. If the boxy building up the street offers better value to tenants, they will go there.

Second, we are Canadian. We are more conservative in matters such as this. Flash doesn't go as far here as it does in other places. Giant gleaming monuments to our own affluence aren't as common here. Thankfully, neither are slums.

Third, it has already failed once. Playing it safe is to be expected.

Having said all that, it may turn out to be a very nice building.
 
Its a fine building.

Its not flashy..and it doesnt scream we are freaking rich like other buildings in other cities seem to do. But its understated and very canadian. I like it.

For those that like flash and panache , the Hotel towers are coming soon. You can start drueling and getting your pants wet when those towers go up.
 
It's amazing how the project has evolved over the years. From the original early 90's rendering to the shortened 45 storey office, to the 62 storey mixed use project, and now to the current rendering. I don't really have any problem with the current rendering except it appears to be too boxy. A roof structure would have been great. I mean the base of the current rendering is fine. If a curved roof structure would be added that would be great, similar to the 2nd rendering when Trizec Hahn had its share in the project.
 
It's also worth noting that Trump is going up pretty much across the street. If it were reversed (the Trump Tower design being used for the office tower and the BA design for the Trump Tower), there might not be this much complaning.


We have also have a fascinating condo project by Liebskind that could very well become a reality.

There are still some great projects in this city.
 
Its hard to know how this project will turn out until they begin. We all have learned how grossly inaccurate renderings can be.
 
^True but that gross inaccuracy mostly plays itself out as the final product being inferior to the visuals expressed in the rendering.

At any rate it's great to finally see what is going up on the site after all these years. A fine building but in my opinion somewhat disappointing for what essentially represents the last major chunk of land in the financial core.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top