Mongo said:
Nothing, really. We know that they can design perfectly fine towers (see Southcore Delta, Chaz, The Met, 88 Scott) if they are given the budget for them.
Click to expand...

None of the towers you have put forward - even Delta - are particularly remarkable from an architectural perspective.

AoD
 
AlvinofDiaspar said:
None of the towers you have put forward - even Delta - are particularly remarkable from an architectural perspective.

AoD
Click to expand...

That's a matter of opinion, one I respectfully disagree with. The design of those towers may not be to everyone's taste and perhaps there's nothing really groundbreaking about them either, but they're certainly more interesting than your typical Toronto highrise.
The various design elements employed on the Delta itself maybe rather subtle, but they come together so well that its far more interesting than its basic form would suggest it to be. When I look at Southcore in its entirety, the ICE towers my be the first building I notice, but that has as much to do about their height as their design, as in the end I always find that my eyes trend to settle on the Delta. In fact I find it to be as visually appealing as even aA's best work, the Four Seasons. But as you noted a there is a difference between a business hotel and a residential project like this. Much like if they had gone with aA, we wouldn't be getting the second coming of the 4 Seasons so I realize that P+S won't be reproducing the Detla here either.

All that being said, P+S would certainly be not be my 1st choice either. I'm just ambivalent about them being chosen over aA for this project. That's not to say that aA isn't the better firm in general when comparing the two, they're certainly far superior when it comes to the finer details. But I find it somewhat ironic that you noted P+S buildings as being unremarkable, for I feel the exact same way about the majority of aA's buildings. As well executed as they may be, the last thing City Place needs is a 79s version of U condo/Distillery/Murano/Casa 4/Peter st/Harbour Plaza/etc, which is most likely the type of building they would design here. Basically a taller and somewhat more refined version of everything that's already there. It's been rumored that P+S have designed a 'plus' (+) shaped tower with artwork running up a portion of the building's sides, so I'm encouraged by that news as that's something different, albeit not radically so, than the usual CP building.
 
vegeta_skyline said:
That's a matter of opinion, one I respectfully disagree with. The design of those towers may not be to everyone's taste and perhaps there's nothing really groundbreaking about them either, but they're certainly more interesting than your typical Toronto highrise.
The various design elements employed on the Delta itself maybe rather subtle, but they come together so well that its far more interesting than its basic form would suggest it to be. When I look at Southcore in its entirety, the ICE towers my be the first building I notice, but that has as much to do about their height as their design, as in the end I always find that my eyes trend to settle on the Delta. In fact I find it to be as visually appealing as even aA's best work, the Four Seasons. But as you noted a there is a difference between a business hotel and a residential project like this. Much like if they had gone with aA, we wouldn't be getting the second coming of the 4 Seasons so I realize that P+S won't be reproducing the Detla here either.

All that being said, P+S would certainly be not be my 1st choice either. I'm just ambivalent about them being chosen over aA for this project. That's not to say that aA isn't the better firm in general when comparing the two, they're certainly far superior when it comes to the finer details. But I find it somewhat ironic that you noted P+S buildings as being unremarkable, for I feel the exact same way about the majority of aA's buildings. As well executed as they may be, the last thing City Place needs is a 79s version of U condo/Distillery/Murano/Casa 4/Peter st/Harbour Plaza/etc, which is most likely the type of building they would design here. Basically a taller and somewhat more refined version of everything that's already there. It's been rumored that P+S have designed a 'plus' (+) shaped tower with artwork running up a portion of the building's sides, so I'm encouraged by that news as that's something different, albeit not radically so, than the usual CP building.
Click to expand...

Drool...

Further, recall other times when P+S were given a 'healthy' budget. 79s of this anyone?

2-chedington-place.jpg


It's also worth noting that Peter walked off this project because the final building wouldn't be the one that won the competition, it would be a compromised collaboration between them and Forsey + Harland. There's an integrity and self-respect present in a firm that is willing to forgo a potentially profitable commission because they know how the results could turn out that's just not in a production line firm like P+S's business plan.

And Mongo, the 'creative talent' gap between firms like aA or HP and P+S or Kirkor is pretty much as broad as the architectural profession itself.
 
vegeta_skyline said:
the last thing City Place needs is a 79s version of U condo/Distillery/Murano/Casa 4/Peter st/Harbour Plaza/etc, which is most likely the type of building they would design here. Basically a taller and somewhat more refined version of everything that's already there.
Click to expand...

Nicely put and exactly what I was thinking.
 
vegeta_skyline said:
It's been rumored that P+S have designed a 'plus' (+) shaped tower with artwork running up a portion of the building's sides, so I'm encouraged by that news as that's something different, albeit not radically so, than the usual CP building.
Click to expand...

From what I can recall it's more the shape of each tower is more like the chevrolet logo than a +
 
ChesterCopperpot said:
From what I can recall it's more the shape of each tower is more like the chevrolet logo than a +
Click to expand...

They were 90 degree angles from the renderings and floor plans I saw, so more like a +. Then again, they were also 60 and 68 stories, so things have definitely changed in the past year since then.
 
AlvinofDiaspar said:
None of the towers you have put forward - even Delta - are particularly remarkable from an architectural perspective.

AoD
Click to expand...

Agree. Delta is elevated by the sterility on all sides; the others are unexceptional. These buildings are only looked up to because the rest is even worse.
 
Last edited:
Where is the City planning dept and the Design Review Board when this kind of second rate dreck is moving forward? From many vantage points these towers will be the most prominent buildings in the city. Apart from cheapifying everything in their midst what positives do they bring to the city? And yet all we hear from the two departments that are supposed to be extra vigilant regarding these proposals are *crickets*. I guess they're too busy trying to kneecap visionary city-building projects like Massey Tower and Mirvish-Gehry. Good to know they have their priorities in order.
 
Irishmonk said:
Where is the City planning dept and the Design Review Board when this kind of second rate dreck is moving forward? From many vantage points these towers will be the most prominent buildings in the city. Apart from cheapifying everything in their midst what positives do they bring to the city? And yet all we hear from the two departments that are supposed to be extra vigilant regarding these proposals are *crickets*. I guess they're too busy trying to kneecap visionary city-building projects like Massey Tower and Mirvish-Gehry. Good to know they have their priorities in order.
Click to expand...

Planning reviews the application on its planning merits while the DRP makes non-binding suggestions about its appearance. Occasionally paying attention to the forum to which you contribute is a priority that you might want to get in order, monk.
 
Irishmonk said:
Where is the City planning dept and the Design Review Board when this kind of second rate dreck is moving forward? From many vantage points these towers will be the most prominent buildings in the city. Apart from cheapifying everything in their midst what positives do they bring to the city? And yet all we hear from the two departments that are supposed to be extra vigilant regarding these proposals are *crickets*. I guess they're too busy trying to kneecap visionary city-building projects like Massey Tower and Mirvish-Gehry. Good to know they have their priorities in order.
Click to expand...

Planning has been involved in this from the very beginning. They were at meetings before a development application was even submitted.
 
It's so unfortunate that P+S is designing it. This could have been Concord's opportunity to produce something elegant and cool, especially being the "signature tower" and probably the last building of the Cityplace development. The earlier design competition renderings would have been fantastic.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
neuhaus said:
It's so unfortunate that P+S is designing it. This could have been Concord's opportunity to produce something elegant and cool, especially being the "signature tower" and probably the last building of the Cityplace development. The earlier design competition renderings would have been fantastic.
Click to expand...

Concord Adex is well aware of the fact that this is their landmark building, and is hoping to capitalize on the attention that this project will attract. Not saying the design will be absolutely amazing, but it definitely won't be the worst.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
At 70+60s, I'd hope we can aim higher than not being the worst. They have caught some attention at the moment, and I am not sure if it is all that positive.

AoD
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top