I'm not going to pre-judge any tower based on it's glazing materials. Every design should be reviewed based on its own merits and how it suits its context.
42
42
Fantastic capture.From Bloor St too...different intersection:
View attachment 65319
Bay St may be dense, but largely, it is full of banal buildings.Damn, I can practically taste that canyon. That looks awesome. I've always had a thing for Bay St. 1ThousandBay is a great addition here; the uneven balconies add a lot of visual variety.
Bay St may be dense, but largely, it is full of banal buildings.
Yeah, I can't say the architecture is stellar, though I wouldn't go so far to say it's banal. But either way, my taste for Bay has a lot more to do with my fetishization of urban density than it does with the finer points of architecture.Bay St may be dense, but largely, it is full of banal buildings.
I said, "largely" banal. There are some handsome buildings on Bay St, but most are stinkers.Nah. Bay Street here demonstrates about 50 years of high rise architecture. 1200 Bay, Manulife Building, 55 Charles, the Polo Clubs, the Mowat Buildings, and then a couple Dickinson buildings around College St. These have all aged pretty well if you ask me. All the aA buildings have added a glass contrast to the brick and concrete towers of yore.