xy3 said:
Does everything have to be contemporary ?

I dont care for the diagonal slope of the main tower portion and some of the gap toothed cutouts but overall it looks a lot better than cheap contemporary schlock like the 15 Bloor W proposal.
Click to expand...
Does everything have to be contemporary? For me, yes. A building built today ideally should reflect (the best of?) contemporary aesthetics and ideals. Otherwise, it belongs in Walt Disney World.
Be an honest reflection of the times. Is that too much to ask?
 
alklay said:
Does everything have to be contemporary? For me, yes. A building built today ideally should reflect (the best of?) contemporary aesthetics and ideals. Otherwise, it belongs in Walt Disney World.
Be an honest reflection of the times. Is that too much to ask?
Click to expand...
Someone in the 1920s/30s could use this same kind of logic to claim that Chicago's Tribune tower is a disney world interpretation of gothic architecture of the 1300 and 1400s.

You can also claim that exposed concrete pillars , oil canning, and copius white or aluminum mullions crisscrossing back painted spandrel glass panels is an expression of material honesty.
 
Last edited:
WOW!
Nice double-sided elevators fronting loading bays for moving.
Massive garbage room on the mezzanine.
Mail room is on the 6th floor.
7th, 8th and 9th floors have bike rooms each with 521 spaces for 1563 spces total.
There are also short-term bike rooms on P1.

... and I just noticed that the Bloor facade for the tall tower has a needless taper.
That will/should probably be value-engineered away.
 
Last edited:
I'm into it, but this seems to be a terrible time to launch a massive condo. Not sure if this design is going to make it to fruition.
 
officedweller said:
WOW!
Nice double-sided elevators fronting loading bays for moving.
Massive garbage room on the mezzanine.
Mail room is on the 6th floor.
7th, 8th and 9th floors have bike rooms each with 521 spaces for 1563 spces total.
There are also short-term bike rooms on P1.

... and I just noticed that the Bloor facade for the tall tower has a needless taper.
That will/should probably be value-engineered away.
Click to expand...
Can you please point out the needless taper you are referring to?
 
tstormers said:
Can you please point out the needless taper you are referring to?
Click to expand...
... and probably on the other side, too.
bgvWWeS.png
 
From the plans it doesn't seem to "taper" as levels 17 thru 75 have the same floor plan, but the elevations say otherwise. Maybe it is just the façade and glazing that do that. Which I agree doesn't have a large impact to feel worth the cost.
Here is the typical Floor plan from 17th-75th from the documents.

View attachment 515603
 
New stats are updated to the database. The storey count changed from 72 storey to 78 storey. The height changed from 250.00m to 263.40m. The unit count changed from 1356 units to 1716 units. Finally, the total parking increased from 205 parking to 258 parking.

Stats are taken from the architectural plan via SPA submission.
 
xy3 said:
Someone in the 1920s/30s could use this same kind of logic to claim that Chicago's Tribune tower is a disney world interpretation of gothic architecture of the 1300 and 1400s.

You can also claim that exposed concrete pillars , oil canning, and copius white or aluminum mullions crisscrossing back painted spandrel glass panels is an expression of material honesty.
Click to expand...
I’ll admit I did prefer the previous version of this tower but I like this version as well.

That said, I completely agree with you. Who decides what today’s architectural style is that everyone has to stick to? If someone wanted to design a building with attention to detail and care and it was in a style that was more common 80 years ago does the make it faux architecture or cheap?

Sure there are examples of cheaply copying things but that’s not exclusive to older buildings. There are cheap copies of modern buildings as well. No reason we can’t have new buildings of multiple architectural styles. Why throw out something tried and true in the name of modern and new. That just doesn’t make sense to me.
 
Last edited:
So as part of this deal, the city is effectively directing $49 million to tear down that building to create the park extension facing Bay Street?
 
People here talk about how the original proposal was never going to be built, meanwhile, 45 Broad Street in New York is similar, but being built

61137_500x650.jpg


What was it about the earlier design that made it unlikely to be built?
 
45 Broad Street is not being built. it is on hold from like 3 years and there were rumors that there is a new design, under 300m but no progress on that.. :)
 
AlexBozikovic said:
So as part of this deal, the city is effectively directing $49 million to tear down that building to create the park extension facing Bay Street?
Click to expand...

Yes.

* So far as I understand, the appellant made this offer to obtain a settlement at (then) LPAT. Though the City subsequently made (demanded) some tweaks.

The money is, in the largest measure, a buyout of the ground lease of Transmetro, of City-owned property that sits atop Bay Street Station.

More detail can be found here:


And here:

 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top