Yup, truly awful redesign. Now if only the effects of the downturn could be focused on particular projects while leaving those around unscathed, this one would be square in the sights of my bad economy gun.

42
 
interchange42 said:
Yup, truly awful redesign. Now if only the effects of the downturn could be focused on particular projects while leaving those around unscathed, this one would be square in the sights of my bad economy gun.

42
Click to expand...

Agreed. This went from being one of the most anticipated projects in the city to one I hope is canned. Hopefully it's redesigned again.
 
are we sure it's not just a stretched image in that pdf?

3276675803_008e653f8e.jpg


21Widmer.jpg




poor scaling/resizing of an image can make any building look ugly and out of proportion

p1628923644be4.jpg


ROCP.jpg

although some buildings look bad either way :p
 
Last edited:
Yes of course, the second picture is just stretched ... I'm not sure where all the hate for this project is coming from.

For one, while yes it does exhibit box light qualities it does have a few unique features that will make it stand out (slightly) ... yes it won't be an eye turner. Secondly I'm really like the base - it works well with the area and would be unique in Toronto particularly if that color shown in the rendering is actually used.

So while yes this isn't amazing or revolutionary it can still turn out very nice.

Why all the hate?
 
taal said:
Yes of course, the second picture is just stretched ... I'm not sure where all the hate for this project is coming from.

For one, while yes it does exhibit box light qualities it does have a few unique features that will make it stand out (slightly) ... yes it won't be an eye turner. Secondly I'm really like the base - it works well with the area and would be unique in Toronto particularly if that color shown in the rendering is actually used.

So while yes this isn't amazing or revolutionary it can still turn out very nice.

Why all the hate?
Click to expand...

It's just an odd mish-mash that doesn't really work.
 
syn said:
It's just an odd mish-mash that doesn't really work.
Click to expand...

Odd == different == beautiful
But that's all relative ;)

I agree that the podium and tower lack some cohesion - but I actually like that in this case. Either way - if you judge the separate elements on their own it can still may for a very very nice tower ...
 
khristopher said:
Comments like that :p
Click to expand...


I was referring to the proposal in the pdf link I attached, with the curved base and tower; NOT the attached image.

From what I could see in the pdf, the base varied from 6s to 12s, then the tower to 44s.
I did not see any staggering of levels in the new version.
 
Last edited:
cdr108 said:
I was referring to the proposal in the pdf link I attached, with the curved base and tower; NOT the attached image.

From what I could see in the pdf, the base varied from 6s to 12s, then the tower to 44s.
I did not see any staggering of levels in the new version.
Click to expand...

That image in the PDF is what we're talking about...
The image is stretched from the good quality image posted on the previous page of this thread...
 
But we still got cheated out of the curvy podium from the original proposal.
 
taal said:
Odd == different == beautiful
But that's all relative ;)

I agree that the podium and tower lack some cohesion - but I actually like that in this case. Either way - if you judge the separate elements on their own it can still may for a very very nice tower ...
Click to expand...

Odd and different can be beautiful, but that doesn't mean they necessarily are.

In this case, they had to modify the original but apparently still wanted it to be a draw; it has resulted in a design that seems to have something for everyone. Some curves, a triangle, some brick, etc. The ultimate result is an unappealing jumble.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top