While I understand and am generally in favour of balconies in other projects...(I have a rather large one myself). Hopefully not here on these two. This is too sensitive an area for balconies.
 
Isotack said:
While I understand and am generally in favour of balconies in other projects...(I have a rather large one myself). Hopefully not here on these two. This is too sensitive an area for balconies.
Click to expand...
No balconies here.

While I find the towers very handsome (and getting RBC plaza vibe), I can't help but think that the towers are "tacked on"
 
I am disappointed to see that there is no coordination of this development with CIBC Square in terms of one leading into the other. That's a major lost opportunity for the city.

42
 
Can someone tell me why the city can't say no?

It can say no to reasonably sized midrises in the Annex/Rosedale, etc, but apparently can't when we're destroying some of the only pieces of city beautiful architecture we have?

Toronto is a mystery - a bad one.
 
.dwg said:
Be sure to check out the drawing set - publicly accessible spaces in the heritage building below and a hotel. I think that’s the most exciting part! The towers look deferential and respectful to the heritage building to my eyes.
Click to expand...

Not impressed - and 2 40x towers in close proximity can only pretend so much not being there - there western tower is especially egregious in positioning.

AoD
 
They don't look bad, but they're too small for that large of a podium. I dig the triangular floor plate and lack of balconies.

I think it would look a lot better as one large tower at ~275m that takes up the wider half of the podium.
 
Filip said:
Can someone tell me why the city can't say no?

It can say no to reasonably sized midrises in the Annex/Rosedale, etc, but apparently can't when we're destroying some of the only pieces of city beautiful architecture we have?

Toronto is a mystery - a bad one.
Click to expand...
Architectural style is not within the City's powers to mandate, but the City can say no if a proposal does not fit within Planning rules and guidelines.

42
 
It's time to say no otherwise every single building is going to end up with a glass tower jutting out the top of it.
 
.dwg said:
That was never possible given the Tall Building Guidelines (floorplate size, separation distance) and shadowing on Berczy Park.
Click to expand...
isn't 141 Bay (CIBC Square phase 2) a stone throw away, and is much taller and bulkier?
 
AlvinofDiaspar said:
Tall, thin and set well back from Front would be a far better move than this.

AoD
Click to expand...

New-Dominion.jpg


The heritage designated long room prevents this. You wouldn't get the efficiencies you need for a really tall tower without an awkward sky-lobby. And even then, it would be incredibly complicated mechanically.

I'm actually pretty impressed how this dances around all of the restrictions set on the site. It's not an easy one and this is an interesting solution. Maybe not perfect, but it shows a great deal of thought.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top