I don't mind BA, in its context at least. It sits there quite demurely beside Trump and so doesn't have to work all that hard to appear elegant in contrast. BA redux, on the other hand, is just a sad and pointless inferior reflection of it.
 
At the end of the day, I really don't mind if this is just another nondescript box, so long as it is well constructed and uses good materials. Even Manhattan is filled with countless office towers that are totally uninspired and featureless boxes. For example, here's 250 West 55th Street, which is now under construction:

2008_2_250west55th.jpg



Yes, they are utilitarian filler but they add core density, and if well made, they act as a nice contextual backdrop to the rarer iconic towers. We could definitely still use a new iconic tower or two, and although BAC East may be a lost opportunity in that respect, there's no reason kick it out of bed.
 
Last edited:
I think pushing for higher architectural expressions is fine. Building form and aesthetic is largely driven by local precedent so it does matter what is built. In some parts of the world every single commercial highrise seems to need to be iconic in form. The net result of this is in my opinion worse than the "just a box" disease we are afflicted with.

In terms of being personally emotional on the subject I have to bring it back to this point: it's easy to play with other people's money. I hope some people who are on or read this forum translate their passion for these issues into real world action. You can only hold influence over these matters if you put your own skin in the game. I'm not interested in highrise development but I am into our low and mid-rise landscapes in the central city and have every intention of personally impacting their form and character in the future.
 
Dont know if this is an add on next door or the actual podium:confused:

10 ADELAIDE ST W
Site Plan Approval 12 192179 STE 28 SA Ward 28
- Tor & E.York Jun 13, 2012 --- --- --- ---
Site Plan approval a six storey podium building adjacent to the Bay-Adelaide Centre (East Tower). Proposal includes non residentail uses for commercial/retail and office purposes. Parking would be supplied in the existing Bay Adelaide Centre
 
Ramako said:
At the end of the day, I really don't mind if this is just another non-nondescript box, so long as it well constructed and uses good materials. Even Manhattan is filled with countless office towers that are totally uninspired and featureless boxes. For example, here's 250 West 55th Street, which is now under construction:

Yes, they are utilitarian filler but they add core density, and if well made, they act as a nice contextual backdrop to the rarer iconic towers. We could definitely still use a new iconic tower or two, and although BAC East may be a lost opportunity in that respect, there's no reason kick it out of bed.
Click to expand...

absolutely. no one would be all that put out by BAC East if we had the genuinely iconic towers to offset it--rather than the trashy Trumps we end up with.

the building to the right of 1 WTC here is almost a clone of BAC (or vice versa, more likely)

8b1b5dfb.gif

e1e3e124.gif
 
Im' actually more interested in seeing how this building meets Yonge Street. South of Queen (back in the day) Yonge was a continuation of our central shopping portal. Does the Bay Adelaide East Tower help re-build some of that retail or do we get a regular financial district podium?
 
pw20 said:
Im' actually more interested in seeing how this building meets Yonge Street. South of Queen (back in the day) Yonge was a continuation of our central shopping portal. Does the Bay Adelaide East Tower help re-build some of that retail or do we get a regular financial district podium?
Click to expand...



correct me if i am wrong, but this building doesn't meet with Yonge at all. Isn't there at least one building between this site and Yonge?
 
Panontario said:
correct me if i am wrong, but this building doesn't meet with Yonge at all. Isn't there at least one building between this site and Yonge?
Click to expand...

Brookfield owns 132 Yonge Street (where addition Elle is), as well as the buildings on Adelaide. They bought them all at some point after they bought the stump next store. Again not sure if they're going to tear those buildings down - but I'm intrigued as to their plans for that section of Yonge... as part of the entire build out of the B/A Centre...
 
pw20 said:
Brookfield owns 132 Yonge Street (where addition Elle is), as well as the buildings on Adelaide. They bought them all at some point after they bought the stump next store. Again not sure if they're going to tear those buildings down - but I'm intrigued as to their plans for that section of Yonge... as part of the entire build out of the B/A Centre...
Click to expand...

Well, if nothing is being demolished on Yonge, it will just the proposed "six storey podium building" noted above between the new tower and the historic buildings. I doubt the podium building will even be all that visible from Yonge given the existing buildings are three stories tall.
 
Last edited:
Pure boxes can be striking, depending on how they're executed. Commerce Court is "just a box" in terms of its envelope, and it's a stunner.

Conversely, look how classy a city looks when every building feels the need to distinguish itself from every other building, to the general detriment of all:

shanghai.jpg
 
Brookfield owns 132 Yonge Street (where addition Elle is), as well as the buildings on Adelaide. They bought them all at some point after they bought the stump next store. Again not sure if they're going to tear those buildings down - but I'm intrigued as to their plans for that section of Yonge... as part of the entire build out of the B/A Centre...
Click to expand...

132 is part of the original Bay Adelaide Centre so I doubt it is going anywhere (it was built at the same time as the stump). It also contains mechanical for the parking garage below the soon to BA East. The older properties on Adelaide are a different story as they are not part of BA in any way at this point.
 
thedeepend:

That's David Child's (SOM) WTC7 - more exacting than BA1. Incidentally, the firm can be considered as an international version of KPMB - competent, conservative, corporate - just look at saga over WTC1 and the furor over the design and of late, cheapening.

AoD
 
Last edited:
thedeepend said:
absolutely. no one would be all that put out by BAC East if we had the genuinely iconic towers to offset it--rather than the trashy Trumps we end up with.
Click to expand...


... and similarly, what's wrong with the odd trashy Trump or Aura in the mix when there are enough 'classy' icons or tasteful boxes to offset them?
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top