yeah, they must be desparate for money if they want to go so high. 48 storeys, that's a bit much for the area.

the two on Mill st. currently are 14 I believe, that's almost 4 times the height.
 
I'm still disappointed the original tower was ever approved...these towers shouldn't be at the Distillery District (or on the edges).
 
They are just too close to the historic portiions and too tall. I like the first buildings on the north side of Mill that rise from the old customs warehouses. They are good in scale, don't cast shadows and are much more sympathetic.

For all the (justified) opposition to the Tour de Thorsell (ROM Tower), I am surprised at the mute reaction to the Pure Shadow towers.
 
For all the (justified) opposition to the Tour de Thorsell (ROM Tower), I am surprised at the mute reaction to the Pure Shadow towers.
Click to expand...

The Distillery District doesn't yet have the mindshare the ROM has...nor does it have any high profile neighbours (UofT) to complain.
 
And if they had built something contextual, there would have been an entire thread here devoted to whingeing about how it was "faux", "facadism" and not "Toronto style".
 
i don't mind having modern buildings surrounding the district. the district serves as a sort of oasis in the urban environment and i think being surrounded by tall glass towers adds to that feeling. modern buildings that were similar height to the old buildings and tried to blend in would detract. i think that if you could pick up the entire district and drop it down in the CBD surrounded by FCP and Scotia et al, it would work very well.

i think that the existing condo buildings that use the old brewery buildings as podiums damage the district far more then the spirit twins could.
 
The ROM is part of the Forbidden City - a lowrise cultural and academic district that already exists - whereas the Distillery District is in the middle of a wasteland that is being reinvented as a commercial/residential neighbourhood.

The tall neo-Modernist tower / lowrise old brick industrial building "design-opposite" solution makes sense.
 
And if they had built something contextual, there would have been an entire thread here devoted to whingeing about how it was "faux", "facadism" and not "Toronto style".
Click to expand...

Sad, but so true.
 
Not that sad, methinks.

Most of what has been built in a contextual way in this city is faux, and usually bad faux too.

Even good faux is still faux - we no longer live in the 1800s - so modern-day Victorian is merely Vic-Schtick, and it has no dignity. I'd far rather have the Louvre/pryamid, or ROM/crystal response, so goody, that's what we're getting.

42
 
By contextual, I am not advocating bad faux. I am suggesting contextual in terms of scale and fit, not style. Clearly, the Pure Shadow towers are not sympathetic in any manner. There's no transition, no relief, just harsh contrast.

The SAS building is somewhat contextual. It fits the scale of other buildings in the area. The new Canada Life tower is very contextual without being faux. Tall, but not completely overshadowing Queen West or Campbell House. It is a transition from the west to east of University.
 
And if they had built something contextual, there would have been an entire thread here devoted to whingeing about how it was "faux", "facadism" and not "Toronto style".
Click to expand...

Who said it has to be "faux"?
 
The small block of office buildings that KPMB did, just west of the St. Lawrence Hall, are contextual but not faux. They adopt the proportions and stylistic essence of the older office buildings on that block and blend in with them.

The Distillery District towers adopt a different approach: they're design-opposites that complement the old warehouses through contrast ( tall/short; glass/brick etc. ).
 
Sorry - I did take 'contextual' to mean architectural style, not scale etc.

That said, I'm not so worried about the scale they are proposing because the glass buildings will be reflective during the day, and should offer some intersting patterns of light overhead at night. By ringing the buildings with glass balconies, you'll add another layer of refelctivity too, buffering the windows behind that will have varying opaque elements behind them. I'm just trying to say that these buildings should provide as much sheen as shadow.

42
 
I think something along the lines of Mozo would've been far nicer in this neighbourhood. The massive towers just detract from it all IMO. There are some areas that don't need massive towers - this is one of them.
 
I like the contrasting style but agree: the massing is disrespectful and has nothing to do with the context of the site and the surrounds. I am surprised the planning department is not raising a fuss.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top