I disagree. This design would receive little attention if it were proposed as 35 storeys on some Humber Bay Shores' plot. The 65 storey height and the history of the One Bloor site is generating the emotional response and not an otherwise average design (to date)
 
I'm not talking about the design, I'm talking about whatever was put here. This design, or any other design that could have been proposed for this site would have been dissected just the same way. There will always be people who do not like what you like.
If this design ends up altered, there will even be people who will say, "I liked it better before".
 
1Btent.jpg
.
 
Frank_R said:
Here's the latest pic of the site at roughly 12:30 pm. Given that this entire corner has been an ongoing circus show, it's fitting that a tent is going up. ;) But it's great to see some activity after all this time.
Click to expand...

I agree! Bring on the brokers! There's no business like show business!

barnum.jpg
 
The Condo Observer said:
Has it been confirmed that its a one-tower scheme?
Click to expand...

No word but if you look at the first photo of the site below you can easily conclude that two staggered point towers could easily fit on this site which is why I suggested it way back when. Also, if you look at the rendering posted by Solaris it hints at a second tower in the top left hand corner. So, time will tell.

Click on the thumbnail to enlarge, then click again on the image for full size.

 
How many times have artists took liberties when rendering a building in its surrounding context? They aren't really concerned about accuracy.
 
Traynor said:
Ugh!

You just can't help but stir the pot, can you?

You focus your dislike of me like a laser beam at my post and try and divine any negativity, so that you can twist it into more antagonism towards me. Even when no pejorative was intended.

I am flattered by your attention, but perhaps you could better use all that energy in talking about Nuimber one Bloor.
Click to expand...

You're paranoid. All I was referring to was how the name "drewp" came off as a novel epithet of some kind...to quote

It's just this kind of connection that gets me scratching my head. Just because Redroom doesn't like it, you drewp assume that he is telling you YOU can't like it either. NOT SO. Redroom is just saying he doesn't like it.
Click to expand...

So, in passing, it's easy to inadvertently read that as your calling someone a "drewp". Whatever a "drewp" is. Even with my knowing you were actually referring to a UTer named "drewp".

Don't get that possessed over whatever differences we had over other posts before--and practice what you preach: no pejorative was intended on my part, either. (Unfortunately, I just flung a wet blanket over my quip there. Oh well.)

droopy.gif
 
Personally I'm liking this rendering so far. I do see the resemblance to Aqua. However as for Aqua, after seeing it in person and in pictures, it doesn't impress me. I actually like N1B better (based on the rendering anyway). Chicago does have a lot of amazing skyscrapers though. So much more variety than here.
 
I think, based on the partial render we have seen of the tower portion of One Bloor, that the design is good enough for this intersection if not outstanding. Of course as everyone here has stated the most important aspect of this design will not be the tower itself but how the podium interacts at street level. For me my dream has always been for a Ginza like counter point at Yonge and Bloor. So large retail windows with interactive storefronts with LED signage and trim would be very important in creating a dynamic pedestrian friendly intersection.
 
caltrane74 said:
So ... storefronts with LED signage and trim would be very important in creating a dynamic pedestrian friendly intersection.
Click to expand...

I don't think Ginza style or Yonge-Dundas style is what we were going for here. And I don't see what LED's and overly bright billboards would do that would be so amazing at this intersection. Do you have any evidence of billboards and signage making a pedestrian area better?

Yes, in some areas it's appropriate, but in others it comes across as trashy. Not here, please.

I hate to be so critical of an idea, but I have to admit, when I hear unfounded ideas like that stated, it reminds me of Robert Moses or something, and other horrific 1950s planning lies.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top