travis3000

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jul 10, 2012
Messages
703
Reaction score
668
I don't think developers should be allowed to change the design this late in the game. People invested their money into this project expecting a certain look. It's shady to just pull the rug out from under their feet in the last inning.

IMO this design is still nicer than 90% of all condo projects in the city, but still feels like a downgrade. More balconies, cheaper material, less futuristic look. I was really digging those gold lines and hexagonal look.

My excitement here has faded, and now Im hoping The One and Mirvish pull it off.
 

Bjays92

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jan 9, 2020
Messages
1,119
Reaction score
2,953
I also agree that is seems unfair to change the building at this point, as it's literally already under construction. Redesigns are apart of the process of course, but they havent just altered the exterior cladding, they've done things like changing the balcony arrangements when people would've already purchased units with different expectations. Really not sure how this is allowed.

Not to mention it really does feel like pulling the rug out from under what couldve been a landmark project.
 

UtakataNoAnnex

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Mar 5, 2020
Messages
3,711
Reaction score
4,910
Is that so? Isn't it interesting then how there's nothing really iconic about the first tower and yet it's been referred to as the best tower on the waterfront. Aside from CIBC Square perhaps, though that's on the other side of the Gardiner.
That's all relative, IMO. As it maybe better than anything else currently south of the Gardiner, it doesn't mean the 3 towers couldn't be improved upon overall.

...however, with the last updated renderings, the current tower maybe end being the best of the three. It is the least one that had any changes to it, probably because it was too far into development to water down. But that's making me real nervous as to how the other two and going be panned out now. As quality of materials maybe also scaled back on the other two. /sigh

How are they able to change the design at this point? Shouldn't any re-design have to be reviewed and approved?
...if they really haven't changed anything structurally? I mean, they certainly toned down the looks of the two towers, but I think the changes are only skin deep.
 
Last edited:

whatever

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Nov 25, 2007
Messages
2,845
Reaction score
883
I wonder if the redesign was partly done to allow for the additional floors. I know that the engineering and design were protecting for the additional floors, and suppliers were advised that the additional floors were being pursued. So, resubmit the new design, and once that's approved they can test the market for the additional units?
 

sunnyside

New Member
Member Bio
Joined
Oct 7, 2021
Messages
16
Reaction score
42
What ever happened to that rumoured height increase that seemed imminent a few pages back?
I was under the impression the architectural diagrams shown here suggested a height increase since talks of one have been around and applications for floor increases have existed as well. In retrospect, the application for added floors was probably to allow this design at all, seeing a total reconfiguration of the building while they're at it. I'm still holding out that we'll see a height increase, at least to compensate for the cookie-cutter design now.

Given that we have all had over 24 hours to really absorb this information, Im quite interested in what people's conclusions are now about the entire project. I'm going to try my hand at summarizing what comes to mind when I take a look at these renders, and maybe we can all elaborate on why this redesign is 'bad'. I think we all know the issues lie primarily in the Skytower redesign. The two shorter towers were never anything too spectacular, although I do appreciate the subtle elegance of tower 1 (I'll call the tower built as of right now tower 1). I was secretly hoping that Pinnacle was waiting on tower 2/Sky tower to see if they could justify expanding the third and final tower, as according to demand. That scenario more or less played out in my head as a final opportunity to one-up The One and Sugar Wharf with an even taller building if they saw fit, seeing that it had the most unfinished-looking design until now and could likely more than easily get a height increase approved if Pinnacle wanted one.

While those ideas are all for the recycling bin now, I can't help but feel that the designs for SkyTower/tower 2 chosen aren't "new" as much as they are alternatives. The old designs weren't groundbreaking, but relatively speaking, they were unique for the waterfront. As Toronto's condo/skyscraper market has matured, projects looking like this sort of feel dated. It certainly has the Toronto Waterfront look now, where most projects feel like a zoning exercise more than actual skyscrapers. Blue glass and wraparound balconies to the top are so last decade, and I am generally shocked a redesign would embrace these elements when looking to value-engineer more than just making some massing changes to the tower. The old massing/silhouette was certainly eye-catching, but it was only so effective because the balconies were second to the compelling form. Now I don't hate the new massing on its own, but If you're going to simplify it, don't simultaneously introduce more balconies! All that SkyTower really needs to remedy this is a reduction in balconies/balcony monotony. The 'flowing' glass motif that is now present (presumably to echo the last iteration's design) almost effectively moves the viewer from the base to the top and could take a cue from tower 1 in this regard. Emphasize that just a little bit more by rearranging the facade/balcony placement, and while still looking cheaper, the tower will be a far more welcome addition than it is about to become.

My final hope is that these renderings have some unseen zoning/design adjustment (other than additional floors) that needed to be conveyed to the City in order to get some kind of approval. Whether that be a slipped-in request for increased height, unit space, or some other property of the building to facilitate a change (see The One seeking to increase to 338m from ~312m?) is yet to be seen. Since all I can refer to are the images in this thread, I'm assuming this Isn't the case, and the most prolific project in Toronto has been value-engineered at the last second. I gotta give it to Mizrahi; if this is what Pinnacle Yonge is going to look like, taller or not (and in spite of Its glacial pace) The One will be the better project now guaranteed. I'd love to hear some other more critical thoughts on why exactly this feels like such a downgrade, and what other components are more disappointing now than before.
 

evandyk

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
May 22, 2019
Messages
1,445
Reaction score
5,219
Does this new plan make the entire building's size larger? Or are the new balconies net deductions from usable unit space?
 

MichaelZ

New Member
Member Bio
Joined
Dec 5, 2021
Messages
35
Reaction score
22
Does this new plan make the entire building's size larger? Or are the new balconies net deductions from usable unit space?
It does seem like it’s a net addition though the building’s so massive it’s hard to tell. If no floor space has been taken away it’s easy to see why the buyers would accept this, they straight get more balcony for their money.
 

khris

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Aug 28, 2007
Messages
8,589
Reaction score
459
That's all relative, IMO. As it maybe better than anything else currently south of the Gardiner, it doesn't mean the 3 towers couldn't be improved upon overall.

...however, with the last updated renderings, the current tower maybe end being the best of the three. It is the least one that had any changes to it, probably because it was too far into development to water down. But that's making me real nervous as to how the other two and going be panned out now. As quality of materials maybe also scaled back on the other two. /sigh


...if they really haven't changed anything structurally? I mean, they certainly toned down the looks of the two towers, but I think the changes are only skin deep.
We have a design review panel for what then? So they can approve something and then have the developer completely change the look of it, and then still be allowed to build it? This is unacceptable.
 

Pinski

New Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jan 12, 2021
Messages
49
Reaction score
144
If a height increase was to be proposed wouldn't it have happened on this revision? Seems really late to then again have another revision of a height increase now
 

emphur

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Oct 15, 2020
Messages
278
Reaction score
2,554
City:
Toronto
Last minute changes like this aren't uncommon, but they are frustrating. What I do find strange is the removal of the crystal motif which has been the entire image of the marketing campaign for the past year. Like this version is less marketable for sure, but I wouldn't say it's monumentally worse by any means. It's not as if this version seems cheaper than the previous iteration as people seem to be suggesting. After all, taking a look at the material documents would show you the overall structure is the same (the balconies are not larger, its the perspective, balcony frit and lighting), there is only minor changes to the first 10 floors in addition to the retooling of the shell feature.

Here's a render comparison:

1638858349467.png
1638858369307.png


Many here need to remember that 3D visualizations are generally not accurate to how the final product will look anyways. The champagne on the pervious iteration would never appear that vibrant in real life as much as that'd be pretty. This updated design is being seen through renders that don't seem to be what Pinnacle would market with (they are for city staff to look at), meaning the materials aren't really shown true to life, they are shown in a way to highlight the products being used (notice the lack of quality reflections on the newer render to show the striping of the spandrel). Also the perspectives are so distorted it's hard to imagine how the crown would actually look in the instances shown.

But aside from that, using the render, let me list the changes and the possible motives for them:

- keep in mind the structure is the same shape as previous iterations.

- thin metal diagrid removed in favor of much thicker 'column like' aesthetic
The thicker metal being used on the new version is by no means cheaper, especially the shaping around the additional balconies above the hotel seen in material documents, and was either done because buyers were concerned about views, or there was some other logistical issue. If I was to guess, this iteration is also supposed to play along better with Phase 1, especially the ground floor changes. It's still a rather HPA looking tower

- balcony additions just above the hotel podium
I can see the justification of melting the podium into the tower. This new solution feels very HPA, as the two other recent Pinnacle projects with HPA also play with tower podium integration in different ways. This unfortunately does hide the tapering in of the main tower volume, but the sweeping of the podium into the tower is actually rather unique.

- changing the accent colour of the metal to white from champagne.
The loss of warmth is unfortunate, but I do wonder if there was a worry the shape would have been lost from both how thin the metal is and the softness of the colour. Should be noted the material sample board still shows a warm brownish frit. The new version is much punchier in comparison to the old one in terms of immediate contrast, but the old one does have a better 'shaping' quality that is best appreciated after staring at it for a little while.

- The tower balcony's on the new version now use fritting, meaning the glass on those portions is more expensive then previous versions.
The striped frit pattern is the same as previous versions (and is the same color based on material samples)

I feel the new version is strong in it's own right, with same pretty nice curves, that will look much bolder from a distance. While very unlikely, the much thicker columns would look great with uplighting. I will miss the diagrid though like many here, it was a neat concept.

The material palette from this submission is neat too for those wanting a more realistic idea of what is going to be used here. Again, notice the frit and white materials here appear to lean warm, unlike the very cold renders.

1638856976785.png
 

cd concept

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Oct 4, 2014
Messages
2,134
Reaction score
1,162
While they're adding changes here ! Might as well add on an observation deck on top the building. For viewing purposes of the city and harbourfront etc for the public .
 

Top