Maybe you should be a little taller because it looks a little stubby in the photo up above !
 
The building very vaguely reminds me of the walkie talkie building in London, but with MUCH better, less clunky massing. I don't mind the thickness -- it's unique for modern Toronto.

We need to be positive about all healthy body shapes and sizes.

1541432444365.png
 
Yeah, I was thinking of that same building in London too. Which I do admire in all its stubby glory. I don't want to see Dubai when I look at the Toronto skyline, but I also don't want to see nothing but uptight perpendiculars.
 
This tower is going to be a really nice relief from the average box-shaped towers. Both the sloped roof line and the roundness will certainly make it stand out. I do hope that they incorporate lighting features that help accentuate the shape.
 
AlvinofDiaspar said:
To make one feel better - aesthetics or not, 160 Front is about double the square footage of 20 Fenchurch (above) - 1.2M sq. ft. vs. 670K. It is BA North sized.

AoD
Click to expand...

BA North will be 820,000 sq ft, so this is quite a bit bigger, I think you're referring to BA West (that tower is 1.16 million square feet). 160 Front must have bigger floor plates though as it will stand 70ft taller than BA West.

Or maybe you are referring to a different tower in London that also goes by BA North. If that's the case I apologize!
 
travis3000 said:
BA North will be 820,000 sq ft, so this is quite a bit bigger, I think you're referring to BA West (that tower is 1.16 million square feet). 160 Front must have bigger floor plates though as it will stand 70ft taller than BA West.

Or maybe you are referring to a different tower in London that also goes by BA North. If that's the case I apologize!
Click to expand...

Sorry I was comparing this to 20 Fenchuch in London (almost double the size) - and then 20 Fenchuch to BA North (the latter two are closer in size).

AoD
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top