they seem to be treating the westinghouse building well at first glance, but upon further inspection, even it looks bad. they are cutting off many of the buildings details, and the current entrance to the building on king seems to be disappearing as well. the towers look like a spandrel mess. I like the base though!
 
The tower is *fine* but within the context of the strip I question if it will add much to the area. And when you consider the disappointment of nearby M5V and the LCBO bunker, you have to wonder if this is another lost opportunity on such an important downtown strip.
 
Double tower proposals should be discouraged, or at least offer a helluva lot of public amenities . Seeing double is becoming a uniquely TO affliction.
 
Frank Godfrey said:
Double tower proposals should be discouraged, or at least offer a helluva lot of public amenities . Seeing double is becoming a uniquely TO affliction.
Click to expand...

It's because it's very profitable and Toronto's city planners don't give a crap. Two short towers instead of one tall tower means less space devoted to elevators...even though it sucks the life out of the skyline and in the long run the building will get scorned and eventually torn down.
 
Last edited:
Almost every city experiencing a boom such as Toronto is building twin tower combinations. Two towers are easier to sell; quicker to construct and; a lot easier to obtain financing.
 
maestro said:
Almost every city experiencing a boom such as Toronto is building twin tower combinations. Two towers are easier to sell; quicker to construct and; a lot easier to obtain financing.
Click to expand...

No doubt you are right about the economics, it's just that in North America, at least , what other city has anywhere near Toronto's volume of new highrises ?
 
What's wrong with twin towers? The only problem I can think of is that I'd rather two buildings differ rather than be almost identical, as in this case. But I would never prefer one tower to two. The problem with Toronto development, the way I see it, is too few towers per development, like the podium island effect where a skinny tower rises from a much wider podium space, whereas in Manhattan three or four towers would be crammed into the same space, which I think is much more beautiful and efficient.
 
I don't get the problem with twin towers either, whether fraternal or identical.

42
 
I visited the sales centre yesterday, the project consists of north and south towers and only the south tower is available for sale now. No details of the north.

I really don't mind the twin towers but I am tired of the the Toronto strategy of integrating façades of older buildings with the new towers and the scale is not even right. The two walls of the Westinghouse building façades are flush with the podium walls of the monolithic project building that you don't even notice the Westinghouse brick façade anymore. I'd prefer if builders set back the glass portion by a few metres to let the preserved part stand out on its own. Thew current practice of preservation is really paying lip service to the cause, the heritage component oftentimes falls into oblivion. One preservation I laud is James Cooper Mansion where they let the old stand on its own and building the new behind it.
 
interchange42 said:
I don't get the problem with twin towers either, whether fraternal or identical.

42
Click to expand...

Me either....

sanremo.jpg
 
It depends on the architecture. If it's lacklustre, the impression that the average person may get is that the builder was stingy and that the cityscape isn't attractive with this characteristic in mind. It's one thing to build a slab tower, but when you see five in a row, the repetition makes it worse by making the lacklustre architecture more dominant in the cityscape. Also, I think that from the perspective of a pedestrian on a street (and not a driver or passenger in a helicopter or plane), more facade variation makes for a more interesting streetscape and satisfying stroll.
 
To paraphrase Oscar:

To build one ordinary tower looks like misfortune, to build two looks like carelessness.

Or, attributed to Voltaire;

"Once, a philosopher - twice, a sodomite!"

Personally, I just think building twin towers on a single base more often than not shows a horrible imaginative deficit. Or it shows finances playing out architecturally at the most banal level. It's seldom "so nice we had to build it twice!". It's more "you don't have a choice but to put up with it". Thanks a lot.
It's a good thing most people don't look up and care - Southcore wouldn't have a streetlife otherwise. Then again, if more people looked up and cared...

Anyway, the Entertaynment Diztrikt doesn't have a great heap of lots large enough to stuff multiples, twins and clones on. Though the individual towers are generally so ordinary on their own, they're pretty much accomplishing the same effect with no effort.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top