The_Architect said:
It's like TD Centre except less interesting and not designed by a famous architect..
Click to expand...

not only that but this grouping lacks the arrangement and proportion that makes the TD Centre so excellent. Each building on its own is a disappointment, as a grouping they are an absolute failure. It's just so frustrating so see such a missed opportunity here. The intent is to maximize floor space and nothing else.
 
They could make the complex mildly interesting by mixing up the glass colour of each building. I'm not expert on colour palettes, but something to the effect of colour or material differences could go a long way.
 
perhaps... though for whatever reason I am having trouble thinking of an example where a cohesive complex has successfully mixed of different colours of glass. The second part of your idea regarding materials would work though. Perhaps take the brick / stone from the rebuilt heritage facade of phase 1 and expand that theme further in these next 2 buildings. Really though, I think the unimaginative shapes and poor arrangement / interplay of the 3 buildings would still make it a disappointment. One of the earlier comments mentioned the missed opportunity of building 1 & 2 creating a frame for building 3, and I absolutely agree - if they are 3 boxes with monotonous glass cladding the only thing framed will be a blank canvas.

I dont know... at some point it just gets frustrating to even care. The property owners and "architects" dont care so why should I (we)? But of course, that just plays into their hands. The lack of vision for these parcels of land is mind numbing.
 
Ridiculous. I wonder why they would even waste their money on an A+ architecural firm if they're just going to build a box?

There is lots of money behind this development and yet we will still get something generic. C'est Toronto, where development is 100% profit-based.
 
Where are the so called city builders, in this city? Do we have any civic leaders who actually love this city? (and declare it proudly) Our own mayor seems to hate the place, especially the downtown core. Toronto sometimes feels like an unloved, orphan child that nobody wants to take care of. We certainly don't take care of our historic buildings or infrastructure. No city takes more abuse than this one. Just read the reader's comments in the Star's Chicago sister city article. I'm sure if anybody from Chicago read the hate spewed against Toronto, their heads would be spinning. (and it's mainly from fellow Torontonians, seemingly)

If regular Torontonians hate this city so much, is it surprising that developers don't give a sh#t? It's sad but for some unknown reason, Toronto appears to be under-appreciated by just about everyone. (but me) Developers just seem to take no pride in contributing buildings we can be proud of and that includes Brookfield and the shitty boxes they plan to build. For a Toronto lover, I find the all the apathy, quite frustrating.
 
Roy G Biv said:
Ridiculous. I wonder why they would even waste their money on an A+ architecural firm if they're just going to build a box?

There is lots of money behind this development and yet we will still get something generic. C'est Toronto, where development is 100% profit-based.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't blame profit as the only thing holding back our developers here in Toronto. Sure profit is important, but like you mentioned, why hire an A+ architectural firm when you don't need such a grand design? There is much more to it than just profit.
 
Torontovibe, hate is often misconstrued as the opposite of love. The opposite of love is indifference. The fact that people complain about the city so much is actually a signal that Toronto is well loved.

As for this tower, it is a fine place of work for a bunch of accountants. It is very far from the kind of bold or arogant statement so many on this forum crave for in our skyscraper architecture. Infact, this building is such an anti-statement I think it starts to become a statement again.
 
noticed on the homepage the site plan:
noticing the south-east side of the building, it looks like it's dented in at the corner, but then upon further inspection, i saw the dotted linesof the outline of the building... which, upon further-further inspections, looks like it not only has corners like BAWest, but even deeper corners.. (didn't the recent renders otherwise prove the exact opposite of hardly any dented corners at all??)

it also looks like this will be a little wider than BAWest on it's east/west faces.

http://urbantoronto.ca/sites/defaul...cles/2012/08/6234/urbantoronto-6234-19979.jpg
http://urbantoronto.ca/news/2012/08/brookfield-prepares-clear-way-bay-adelaide-centre-east
 
We were told by Brookfield when the building was announced that the most up-to-date renderings, plans, whatever, are the ones that show the building without notched corners. In this case I believe that its Bruce Kuwabara preaching the virtues of simplicity that has driven that, not the developer trying to maximize floor space. (They already have maximums they are dealing with, set by the city, regarding total floor space, and total height.) Kuwabara believes in simplicity beyond all else; cf. PwC Tower at the Southcore Financial Centre. Any ornamentation on a Kuwabara building is always minimal in the extreme.

42
 
interchange42 said:
In this case I believe that its Bruce Kuwabara preaching the virtues of simplicity that has driven that, not the developer trying to maximize floor space.

42
Click to expand...

In fact, wouldn't the companies who are occupying those buildings prefer to have notched corners, as it increases the potential number of "corner offices"? I know that was the thinking with regards to the "jagged" designs of Royal Bank Plaza and Scotia Plaza at least.
 
Corner offices are out of style. As an example, new law firm offices tend to have similar office sizes for partners and associates. Meetings are more typically held in boardrooms rather than partner offices, with corners often reserved for boardrooms.
 
innsertnamehere said:
decided to make a model of the finished complex to see what it would look like..

1-2.jpg
Click to expand...

I'm a bit confused here--sorry if this has come up already but on the database UT shows only the building on Adelaide, to the direct east of the one already built. Here though we're seeing three buildings. Will both of these be going up together, or is the one to the north an even later phase?
 
Miscreant said:
I'm a bit confused here--sorry if this has come up already but on the database UT shows only the building on Adelaide, to the direct east of the one already built. Here though we're seeing three buildings. Will both of these be going up together, or is the one to the north an even later phase?
Click to expand...

It's a later phase.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top