Architecturefan
Active Member
Everyone was pretty excited about the CASA elevations iirc. The problem is the number of virtual carbon copies between CASA and this.
If you were to plot a graph of 'urbantoronto satisfaction' versus 'each aA elevation drawing over time,' it would be a steadily downward-sloping curve.
Fair enough. And I suppose I'm slightly biased since I've always been an unwavering Peter Clewes fan. But again I'd suggest waiting to see a full set of renders. I've seen the renders and there are a number of tweaks that I think really put this building above all the other aA designs to date. As it should, its my understanding that this will be marketed as a quite high end building. So in terms of purely massing your right about this being more of the same but I'd still wait to see the renders before writing this one off.
By the way, for all those who think this is going to destroy the corridor and that the development is completely reckless with respect to its effects on the legislature, consider this. The City's position was that the view that really matters is the view from College Street. They addressed that, hence the significant reductions in height throughout the process. Now for all those who still think that even if that's addressed then the view from say Queen should matter just as much. Well then you can already see the existing four seasons from that view. No one was up and arms about that, in fact I don't think this issue had ever been raised prior to this debate. Even when the existing four seasons was approved 30 or 40 years back there was not one mention in City documents about impacts to the view corridor.
On a more practical level, also consider, the development is two point towers a kilometer away from legislature. There's a reason no one ever noticed the view impacts of the existing four seasons.