[cd concept]

The same could be said about the whole neighbourhood. The buildings here have no charm whatsoever.

The problem is the façades look cheap too many cold colours are used for the windows. The transparent blue green glass that you can see the drapes and everything inside is making the downtown core look cheep. If you look at the original financial core with Scotia Tower, Toronto Dominion buildings, bank of Montreal and the Royal Bank they look rich. Thier verity of rich colored facades really complimented the CN Tower. And that should of continued right down to waterfront.

 

[travis3000]

Love the black cladding, it looks promising.

 

[cd concept]

Love the black cladding, it looks promising.

I hope so if it's a black glazed look ! Compared to some of the other types of coloured glazed glass. They should have a bylaw that permits too many buildings from having the same style glazed glass beside each other.

 

[greenleaf]

They should have a bylaw that permits too many buildings from having the same style glazed glass beside each other.

On the other hand, maybe in 100 years Torontonians will look at Southcore neighbourhood and recognize it as a heritage conservation district for its fine examples of glass architecture. For better or worse, it does have a cohesive look like cabbagetown does.

 

[taal]

That black glass does look nice, a black office building would be amazing actually, but the renderings don't depict that at all, maybe just for the podium ?

 

[salsa]

On the other hand, maybe in 100 years Torontonians will look at Southcore neighbourhood and recognize it as a heritage conservation district for its fine examples of glass architecture. For better or worse, it does have a cohesive look like cabbagetown does.

I'll believe it when I see the facade of Infinity or Maple Leaf Square incorporated into a new tower. But in reality, the facades will probably not last more than 30 years before having to be replaced. And from an energy efficiency perspective, these glass condos will be condemned by future generations like the slabs-in-a-park that we criticize today.

 

[WiddleBittyKitty]

Compared to some of the other types of coloured glazed glass. They should have a bylaw that permits too many buildings from having the same style glazed glass beside each other.

Tell me about it, I am so sick of glazed glass. It's time for some non-glazed glass in Toronto, like here in Bali, totally non-glazed:

 

[ptbotrmpfn]

um the only glass in the picture is the table. the vase and the mirror. not a great example but get your point.

 

[wmedia]

I'll believe it when I see the facade of Infinity or Maple Leaf Square incorporated into a new tower. But in reality, the facades will probably not last more than 30 years before having to be replaced. And from an energy efficiency perspective, these glass condos will be condemned by future generations like the towers-in-a-park that we criticize today.

In 30 years time, energy efficiency won't even be an issue. Sustainable nuclear fusion will be a reality, and robots will re-glaze the older condos, using new materials that you can't even image now, also manufactured by robots. All of this will happen while I'm wired up to a virtual reality machine, with new and unusual drugs pumping through my veins.

Your version of the future is kinda boring!

 

[cd concept]

Yes 30 years from now they will be refurbishing all the façades of these condos creating big business for the glass industry. I hope it looks better than what it looks like now.

 

[maestro]

I don't see any of the 30 year old glass condos having their facades replaced. Heck, many towers, both condo and rental, still have single pane glass. Energy efficiency from leaking gaskets won't be a large enough cause. Installing thermal breaks in the slab now during construction between the balcony and interior aren't a large enough cause either. Unless the window wall has structural issues, I don't see too much beyond the usual maintenance and repair. Gold mine to the first to build a suction cupped, caulking gunned, robot.

 

[whatever]

It's just a matter of time, they already have them for the shipbuilding industry: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PjMKW6salBs

But a lot of these buildings will barely make it through their warranty periods (3 to 5 years). It's true that if they're done properly they should have a lifespan of at least twenty years, but corners are frequently cut and as a result the systems fail prematurely.

 

[TrickyRicky]

I agree with maestro. I think the doomsday scenario outlined by engineers and building scientists won't pan out. Will these buildings have performance issues? Yes. Will there be financial and legal implications? Yes. We build most homes today with 25 year life-cycles but the vast majority will still be here and still be in operation over 100 years from now. Engineers are realistic on the pessimistic side because that is their duty, it is the service they offer to society. Some buildings built today will be disasters but the vast majority of cheaply ill conceived constructions will in my opinion out-live their design life by at least 4 fold. They will have no choice because they will be pressed into service for that long.

Just take an individual building as an example, if you were to just let it fall apart over time you would get performance issues at some location on it's surface due to a culmination of micro-climate, exposure direction, etc. within a short period of time. The rest of the building might not have any problems for another 30 years. Does this mean that the building has failed and he entire façade should be thrown in the garbage?

 

[modernizt]

They will have no choice because they will be pressed into service for that long.

And that's the exact problem. The windows will still be "functioning" as a building skin, but they will offer such poor thermal performance over the decades that the extra energy used will be enormous.

My concern with window-wall is not its need to be eventually replaced, whether that is sooner or later. My concern is what energy suckers window-wall buildings are by nature of the inferior thermal performance of window-wall systems. One year of abundant energy use is one thing --- 50 years of excessive energy use is a painful thought.

Urban enthusiasts on UT and elsewhere harp on about how cars are so bad for the environment, but people are so willing to turn a blind eye to the vast problem of buildings' energy use.

 

[whatever]

Just take an individual building as an example, if you were to just let it fall apart over time you would get performance issues at some location on it's surface due to a culmination of micro-climate, exposure direction, etc. within a short period of time. The rest of the building might not have any problems for another 30 years. Does this mean that the building has failed and he entire façade should be thrown in the garbage?

And that becomes a question of on-going maintenance. If one window fails and it gets replaced that's no problem. But if a window fails and isn't replaced, you now have the beginning of a progressive failure. Water penetration into the dry side of the system will cause rapid degradation of insulation, sealants, and fasteners. That in turn will permit the introduction of additional water into the dry side of the system, which in turn causes more degradation. And then you have the issue that it's rare for it to be just one window that fails in the first place. Because the wall is being produced in factory conditions you'll very often see that it's a bad batch of windows, or a bad batch of frames where the gaskets were applied incorrectly, or something like that.

I've seen cases where every single fastener on a project was the wrong type (stainless instead of zinc, for example), so that two years in there was already severe oxidation at every fastener on the wall. At that point do you change out every single fastener, or just scrap the wall?