Lenser

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Dec 8, 2011
Messages
3,129
Reaction score
3,711
City:
Toronto
I agree in principle that the street experience is important, but as an ideal to aspire to, a building's design in its totality should be equally crucial. If any given structure is to have dignity or impressiveness, it must work well along a wide range of factors - and that includes having as much integrity in its upper reaches as it does in its streetwall vibe.

isaisso's notion of "Functional and attractive" should be equally weighted considerations which would work equally well regardless of what particular floor we're talking about in any given new or proposed building. After all, our best buildings have to last several decades (if not considerably longer) and they had better embody classic aspects of good design - and rock some serious mojo - to take them forward.
 

muller877

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jun 14, 2011
Messages
1,688
Reaction score
756
There's been chatter of Waterhouse leaving Bay & Bloor for something downtown (and thereby closer to the GO lines).

I would assume they would be moving to one of the TD buildings that have been vacated (or will be vacated). TD South was called TD Waterhouse. Do you know when the lease is up? Maybe Ernst & Young's space in 2017-2018 (and the Ernst & Young Tower can be renamed TD East)
 

Tewder

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 30, 2007
Messages
5,401
Reaction score
157
in any city, most (95%+) buildings are forgettable. Buildings are essentially for people to live or work in. The beauty is just an added benefit.
Despite the purpose of this forum, I think making better use of land (filling the vacant lots with buildings with a purpose) is more important than to have a couple of really impressive skyscrapers. The city is for people to live in, not just to look at at the end of the day.

I would love to see designers and architects in Toronto working to develop a stronger vernacular, or local point of view for the built form. Too often the focus is on the 'iconic' or on the forced struggle for something bold and new, or at the other end of the spectrum on design clichés and tired retreads from other places. What seems to be lacking in all of this is a solid middle ground of reliable vernacular concepts/values that designers can turn to, a common language in other words.

I agree with Ksun that not every building has to be a marvel, and nor should they be, but at the very least we should be striving for some shared design coherence that helps buildings to 'fit in' in the most basic ways. I'm not suggesting there's no room for the novel or the iconic, but when everything is 'unique', nothing is.

To my mind, by the way, Peter Clewes of aA is just about one of the best doing this. I hope others are paying attention.
 

isaidso

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
May 24, 2007
Messages
1,978
Reaction score
2,060
I would love to see designers and architects in Toronto working to develop a stronger vernacular, or local point of view for the built form. Too often the focus is on the 'iconic' or on the forced struggle for something bold and new, or at the other end of the spectrum on design clichés and tired retreads from other places. What seems to be lacking in all of this is a solid middle ground of reliable vernacular concepts/values that designers can turn to, a common language in other words.

I agree with Ksun that not every building has to be a marvel, and nor should they be, but at the very least we should be striving for some shared design coherence that helps buildings to 'fit in' in the most basic ways. I'm not suggesting there's no room for the novel or the iconic, but when everything is 'unique', nothing is.

To my mind, by the way, Peter Clewes of aA is just about one of the best doing this. I hope others are paying attention.

The last thing Toronto is in danger of is everything being a show stopper. It's repetitive sterility that's the becoming a pressing issue. Striving for some design coherence has merit, but my worry is precisely that we'll end up with a Peter Clewes city. It's just not my cup of tea although I do recognize its quality.

Toronto's trump card has always been its diversity. It's a chaotic jumbled collision of so many ideas, cultures, and aesthetics. It's what makes Toronto infinitely more interesting to me than the planned perfection that is Paris. Toronto may not get the instant accolades that a Paris does, but it wins the day in the end.

My concern is that we compromise too much and play it a tad too safe. Almost every style holds interest to someone even if it doesn't speak to us personally. Our focus should be on its quality rather than trying so hard not to offend. Beige increases the marketability of a house, but do you want to live in a beige house?
 

Big Daddy

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Nov 29, 2007
Messages
1,792
Reaction score
329
Some great additions to our office portfolio.

70E71F4D-D611-40D3-B394-50A69FD31D65.png
 
Last edited:

ushahid

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Sep 26, 2013
Messages
3,301
Reaction score
4,533
^ and 4 out of 7 are boxes.
it it is a good news that it got approved at proposed height and hope they get a tenant soon.
 

Big Daddy

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Nov 29, 2007
Messages
1,792
Reaction score
329
Gee looking at that chart, its hard to believe Toronto only has 7 office bldgs over 200m

Exactly - shows you why the city is pushing for more office and had virtually no problems with either of the two newest towers.

156 Front is at 21.7 times coverage - I believe they left some opportunity on the table. (at 24 times it would be more like 61 floors - 293 m +-)
 
Last edited:

CITY_LOVER

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jan 31, 2009
Messages
341
Reaction score
12
Gee looking at that chart, its hard to believe Toronto only has 7 office bldgs over 200m

Hi, yup! And also, another somewhat-related FYI: in terms of the number of office buildings that are 30 storeys or more (regardless of height), it's Calgary, not Toronto, that has the most number of pure office towers in Canada! You can google this if you don't believe me but if we're going to look at these types indicators, I might as well throw that in! :)

And Calgary also has more head offices in absolute numbers than the City of Toronto (416) when looking at the largest 1300 or 1500 companies (companies traded on the TSE, as per Financial Post); the GTA as a whole, however, is still number one in that respect. In per-person terms, of course Calgary beats every other Canadian metro area (unsurprisingly). Just another FYI.....
 

rpeters

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 16, 2012
Messages
279
Reaction score
1
Hi, yup! And also, another somewhat-related FYI: in terms of the number of office buildings that are 30 storeys or more (regardless of height), it's Calgary, not Toronto, that has the most number of pure office towers in Canada! You can google this if you don't believe me but if we're going to look at these types indicators, I might as well throw that in! :)

And Calgary also has more head offices in absolute numbers than the City of Toronto (416) when looking at the largest 1300 or 1500 companies (companies traded on the TSE, as per Financial Post); the GTA as a whole, however, is still number one in that respect. In per-person terms, of course Calgary beats every other Canadian metro area (unsurprisingly). Just another FYI.....

Well FYI, Toronto the city alone has a GDP more than 3 times larger, and 20% higher GDP per capita than Calgary (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cities_by_GDP)
 

Ramako

Moderator
Member Bio
Joined
Oct 31, 2007
Messages
4,652
Reaction score
844
Let's not have this thread veer off into Toronto vs. Calgary. Back on topic please.
 

ushahid

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Sep 26, 2013
Messages
3,301
Reaction score
4,533
is there any news of this thing having a tenant soon?
 

Top