But the point you continually refuse to see is that they won't look so great once they're actually built. aA might be repetitive but they are consistently good. Firms like P&S will come up with these whacky, imaginative designs and proceed to ruin them with low quality material and corner cutting. I'd rather another glass box that is actually nice to look at than some ugly monstrosity that tries too hard to be "unique."
What is it that stops members from not counting the effect the developer has on a development? It's always about architects, and it's always about architects cutting corners. Do you not read anything on the front page and learn from it? Do you only come to UT to spout uniformed reactions? What's the point in spreading half-baked opinions around?

42
 
Renders are mostly fantasy right?

I'm excited by renderings that show a hint of personality -- something I feel a lot of our buildings are lacking. Now, the cheapening™ is definitely real, and occurs often. However, it's unfair to peg it all on the architects. I think it's really down to the key decision makers. Also, I think a lot of what we see proposed is a reflection of the taste of these key decision makers. I don't think many of them have a heightened sense of design or style.
 
I would much rather have a taller single middle tower than the double tower proposed. Would be great to have more open space in the middle of the site where the western middle tower's footprint is. I think the DRP's comments were very appropriate.
 
I get that the hospital flight path is why the largest tower is at the south, but it will feel weird to have a 58 storey tower hanging over queen east. Also I'm disappointed the renders don't show how the south tower meets queen, as that seems like one of the most important things to get right. Anything will improve on the present situation, but a clumsy glass wall retail podium with one or two blue-chip tenants isn't likely to draw too much energy from the core eastward.

You'll have to put me in the coloured skeptical camp about entrusting an entire downtown city block to this firm. There's few inner city sites that are large enough to act as a tabula rasa for grand architectural gestures. This site could have been that. Even if the current P+S design is well-executed, it seems like a wasted opportunity.

And I'm as anxious as the next guy to see this parking lot gone.
 
There are renderings in the front page story that show how the tallest tower hits Queen.

42
 
Since you where there, what did the DRP have to say about the other project on the agenda (141 Bay street)??
They said it was the best project they had ever seen (sort of). They had a few comments that seemed quite useful and the architect and developer folks seemed very appreciative. One thing they suggested was to try to bring the park part "into the office lobbies' and quoted http://www.openlobbynyc.com/
 
There are renderings in the front page story that show how the tallest tower hits Queen.

42

My bad i42, thanks. Anyway, this is a good design for P+S, but IMHO its still not good enough for a project of this scale. What are my concerns?

The cover story generously refers to the south tower as an homage to 56 Leonard. While I definitely see this, the motif at the top of the tower resolves abruptly into a rather ordinary looking Toronto condominium. The two parts of the tower don’t seem to be very interested in each other.

Also, I’m generally pro-height, but 58 storeys fronting onto Queen East seems pretty heavily scaled for the neighbourhood. Whether or not this is too tall, there is nothing near as tall in the vicinity. As such, the south tower will have significant visibility from all directions. I don’t think this design deserves that level of attention. The saving grace of Aura is that there are now much nicer designs which soon could largely cover it from the east and south. If this building turns out to be an eyesore, it’ll be an eyesore from 360 degrees.

The stacked box podium adds some visual interest, but the inset base has the potential to create a shadowy and uninviting retail space.

More fundamentally, the project as a whole seems to lack the coherence of Toronto’s best modernist megaprojects. The north and south towers seem to speak something of the same design language. As do the podia of the south and middle tower. However, the north podium and the middle tower do not seem to relate to the rest of the project at all.

On the other hand, the project’s phases are not varied and diverse enough to create the kind of micro-sensitive street level experience intended, for example, at Henrique’s Bloor and Bathurst. This is definitely a blockbusting, megaproject. Just a poorly rationalized one.
 
Last edited:
The cover story generously refers to the south tower as an homage to 56 Leonard. While I definitely see this, the motif at the top of the tower resolves abruptly into a rather ordinary looking Toronto condominium. The two parts of the tower don’t seem to be very interested in each other.
I don't mean to editorialize at all, I just want to say that I was at the Design Review Panel meeting as well and while I did not write down the exact words spoken by architect Mansoor Kazerouni, he was absolutely direct that the inspiration for 88 South was 56 Leonard, with no pretence that the concept was original to P+S. 56 Leonard also starts as a more typical tower at its lower levels and gradually pulls apart as it rises higher, BTW!

42
 
There is a great article in today's FT on the new architectural style called "urban fracture" - entitled "Inspiration in Disintegration - fragmented, pixelated, stacked" by Edwin Heathcote -- mentions 56 Leonard - very similar style to what is proposed for the taller South Tower at 88 Queen E -
http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/a8f15648-d591-11e5-8887-98e7feb46f27.html#axzz41P6wGo79

upload_2016-2-27_16-2-52.png


Buro Ole Scheeren's MahaNakhon Tower in Bangkok from today's FT Article by Edwin Heathcote, Architecture and Design Critic

upload_2016-2-27_16-4-14.png


From the FT Article - 56 Leonard and 66 Hudson in NYC by Edwin Heathcote
 

Attachments

  • upload_2016-2-27_16-2-52.png
    upload_2016-2-27_16-2-52.png
    1 MB · Views: 2,013
  • upload_2016-2-27_16-4-14.png
    upload_2016-2-27_16-4-14.png
    664.8 KB · Views: 1,736
Last edited by a moderator:
88-QUEEN-CONDOS-NEW-DEVELOPMENT-AT-YONGE-AND-QUEEN-CONTACT-YOSSI-KAPLAN.jpg


Looks kind of similar 88 Queen East - South Tower
 

Attachments

  • 88-QUEEN-CONDOS-NEW-DEVELOPMENT-AT-YONGE-AND-QUEEN-CONTACT-YOSSI-KAPLAN.jpg
    88-QUEEN-CONDOS-NEW-DEVELOPMENT-AT-YONGE-AND-QUEEN-CONTACT-YOSSI-KAPLAN.jpg
    67 KB · Views: 1,596

Back
Top