I like that the lighting is integrated with the grooves / ridges in the cladding. It feels like the scheme was incorporated into the design at the onset rather than tacked on for TD. I also wish they'd forego the logo on the east side, it cheapens the whole look and throws off the grand boulevard look of Front St between this and Union Station
 
Logo should be on 3 sides, no need for it on all four. It kinda competes with the upper indent. I know everyone hates logos but they aren't going away. Given the current state of the things....we should be happy we have 3 massive office towers under construction (CIBC 1, CIBC 2, 160 Front). Could be the last of it for a very long time. A few thoughts on this tower....

-I actually like how they plan to incorporate their brand with events going on like Pride, Canada Day, etc. It'll be a first in the city for a building of this magnitude.

-I like the green top lighting addition. I've always said Toronto needs more colour. One of the things I love about Montreal at night is how vibrant and colourful the city is. Toronto on the other hand has always been more sterile and bland. So this will add a nice change to the skyline

-Logo is a bit much but what can you do really?

-Quality looks solid, I like the staggered glass at ground level.

Overall I think it'll surprise and turn out quite well. Im excited to watch it rise.
 
travis3000 said:
Logo should be on 3 sides, no need for it on all four.
Click to expand...

Future towers directly north and south of the site will obstruct the majority of the building and its branding on those sides in coming years (though unfortunately the more visibly pleasing profiles of the building IMO). They’ll definitely become more redundant over time which is a shame considering how advanced the signage will be. Though less extreme than the south facing KPMG logo facing the upper residences of the St. Regis. I don’t seem to recall that signage was ever dimmed during the evening.

I’m also in the camp that we have a few too many logos atop prominent office towers.
I’m hoping the level of branding shown in the marketing images of CIBC square isn’t fully realized:

source:https://urbantoronto.ca/database/projects/cibc-square
5750-95582.jpeg
 
.dwg said:
*Invest vast millions of dollars into a new building...

...then compromise the design you spent your millions on by tacking your logos where they conflict with the design.*

What's even the point of getting nice architecture if you're just going to compromise it right out of the gates?
God I hate the obsession with branding.
Click to expand...

TD is basically paying for the building. Of course branding is important to them. Why wouldn't they put their logo up there?
 
GTA office building spree to spur major tenant shuffle

May. 26, 2020

TD Bank Group took a 30 per cent ownership stake in 160 Front St. W. and will occupy 840,000 square feet over 33 floors. Cadillac Fairview owns 50 per cent of the building and Investment Management Corporation of Ontario owns 20 per cent.

Ontario Teachers’ Pension Plan is committed to 340,000 square feet in the fully leased 46-storey building, which is tentatively scheduled for completion in late 2022.

renx.ca

GTA office building spree to spur major tenant shuffle

Toronto has 8.7 million square feet of office space under construction and 27.5 million more in the development pipeline. While the COVID-19 pandemic will undoubtedly create some fallout within the sector – a rethinking of office space usage, perhaps some
renx.ca renx.ca
 
Edward Skira said:
TD is basically paying for the building. Of course branding is important to them. Why wouldn't they put their logo up there?
Click to expand...

The point is it compromises the architecture in a big way, but they're allowed to do it so of course they will. Signage permits ought to be more tightly controlled so this crap doesn't happen. London's skyline isn't littered with logos and branding, for instance.
 
North said:
The point is it compromises the architecture in a big way, but they're allowed to do it so of course they will. Signage permits ought to be more tightly controlled so this crap doesn't happen. London's skyline isn't littered with logos and branding, for instance.
Click to expand...
Not many signs on towers in central London but lots of signage on Canary Warf towers. I appreciate the design and I think it is refreshing to see a design with some curves and interesting integrated lighting. The updated proposed signage is an improvement in my eyes. If you look at the recent renders posted above you can see the signage will have quite a presence from high pedestrian traffic areas such as Front Street in front of Union Station and Rogers Centre/ CN Tower along Bremner looking East or when walking towards York Street.
 
I can tell that many of you conflated and mischaracterized my commentary about garish signage that detracts from a design as suggesting that I was suggesting no branding whatsoever. Rather, as others of you probably surmised, I was suggesting that maybe signage be integrated better and complement a design if you are really serious about design. TD could have done the architecture justice and found a better way to incorporate their logo.
 
billyt23 said:
Not many signs on towers in central London but lots of signage on Canary Warf towers. I appreciate the design and I think it is refreshing to see a design with some curves and interesting integrated lighting. The updated proposed signage is an improvement in my eyes. If you look at the recent renders posted above you can see the signage will have quite a presence from high pedestrian traffic areas such as Front Street in front of Union Station and Rogers Centre/ CN Tower along Bremner looking East or when walking towards York Street.
Click to expand...

Presence isn't the same as design excellence.

AoD
 
billyt23 said:
I am talking about the presence of the signage. It will be seen by many eyes= $$$.
Click to expand...

That's exactly what I am getting at - presence - or in this case exposure - is definitely not the same thing as how well designed, aesthetically pleasing and add to the whole of the project.

Quite frankly, overdoing logos suggests insecurity - not projecting confidence. But what do I know, I just hope as a customer the said business spend less money on this nonsense.

AoD
 
Last edited:
AlvinofDiaspar said:
That's exactly what I am getting at - presence - or in this case exposure - is definitely not the same thing as how well designed, aesthetically pleasing and add to the whole of the project.

AoD
Click to expand...
I agree with you. I was trying to highlight the fact that this is a valuable location for signage to those who don't see why the signs are present. The sign placement is an improvement over the pervious render for the east face where it disrupted the overall shape. On the other hand I don't feel that any of the signs but the eastern sign detract from the design of the tower. That's my perspective. The advertisement is for TD Bank not for the tower, so I don't really think it matters to too many people outside of this forum whether it adds value to the whole project in terms of the signs design aesthetic. I would have a different perspective if it was a sign for a developer or architectural firm that was not integrated into the design. I think the screen and lighting changing for events is a thoughtful addition to the overall design of the tower, which I appreciate.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top