[AHK]

February 26:

 

[ProjectEnd]

 

[GenerationLee]

Yesterday, off the (Leslie) Spit
It's left of the CN tower as many of you may know from this view.

 

[teddles]

Tuesday March 5. South of Fort York. Photo doesn’t really do this view justice, it feels extremely urban.

 

[old boy]

Tuesday March 5. South of Fort York. Photo doesn’t really do this view justice, it feels extremely urban.

View attachment 546420

Juxtaposed with the chipped support column.

 

[teddles]

Juxtaposed with the chipped support column.

Indeed. That part of the gardiner’s belly actually looks vastly improved, work was ongoing just west of where I took that photo, but vastly improved only means so much considering it looked a notably rough part of Gotham five years ago

 

[Red Mars]

Mar 7, 2024

 

[ben.thebean1]

Mar 7, 2024

View attachment 546442

The leaf is super visible here, wow

 

[3Dementia]

I posted this very crisp view in the Toronto Skyline thread (originally posted by Drew over at SSP).

Looks fine from afar .

Home by Devi E, on Flickr

 

[AHK]

March 7:

And from the Strachan railway overpass:

 

[Red Mars]

Mar 7, 2024

 

[Civdis]

I may be the minority here, but I don't mind how this is turning out. Not the best in the city by a long shot but not as bad as some say. This is a project that should not be judged until it is complete.

 

[Rascacielo]

I may be the minority here, but I don't mind how this is turning out. Not the best in the city by a long shot but not as bad as some say. This is a project that should not be judged until it is complete.

Concord touted this as a signature project, so most people were expecting spectacular architecture, or at least something strikingly different from the rest of CityPlace towers. Instead what we're getting is more of the same, just taller. Concord did include some features that are not available in the other towers though: bigger, partially enclosed balconies with heating. I guess to them those features plus the height are enough to make these towers 'signature'.

 

[ProjectEnd]

Concord touted this as a signature project, so most people were expecting spectacular architecture, or at least something strikingly different from the rest of CityPlace towers. Instead what we're getting is more of the same, just taller. Concord did include some features that are not available in the other towers though: bigger, partially enclosed balconies with heating. I guess to them those features plus the height are enough to make these towers 'signature'.

The name 'Signature' is something that appeared on UT 16+ years ago and has taken on a life of its own. Here's a site plan from 2010. I don't see the word "Signature".

This jpg from 2008 is titled "Signature2", does that make the building depicted a 'signature'?

The notion of a 'signature' is so tired. You can like or hate this project, but if your primary complaint is that it doesn't match your interpretation of an unofficial moniker from a decade and a half ago, I don't know what to tell you.

 

[3Dementia]

In some ways these belong in CityPlace ... they fit in and maybe not the spot for a so-called signature project, in a forest of underwhelming architecture.

Concord has one chance to do something approaching a signature building ... it has their name on it, it's one of tallest projects in the country and has a pretty good AOR on board (a-A).

Concord Sky will redefine the skyline forever (especially from the west and east). Will it end up the tallest skyscraper embarrassment on the continent... or will we be shocked with decent cladding and execution?

It's a crap shoot right now and I'd wager I'm not the only 'scraper geek here that is very, very worried. I think Concord owes the city one very good tower... "signature building" is too much to hope for.