wyliepoon said:
I've mentioned this before, but the problem with the new office towers in Toronto these days is that they are speculative developments. If they were designed as corporate headquarters right from the beginning we might have seen much more thought put into the design, as corporations would be looking for a more unique design to project a corporate image.
Click to expand...

It was previously Union Tower and was redesigned as Telus Tower to give the image that was felt to be appropriate to Telus.

18 York is an example more supportive of your statement, though.
 
I agree with the detractors. This looks like a cheap, spiritless box and another blemish on the skyline. It would be better suited near Square One or some highway off ramp.
 
I'm surprised nobody has noted its resemblance to the Maclean-Hunter building at 777 Bay. They have nearly identical proportions.
 
wyliepoon said:
June 9


*****

I've mentioned this before, but the problem with the new office towers in Toronto these days is that they are speculative developments. If they were designed as corporate headquarters right from the beginning we might have seen much more thought put into the design, as corporations would be looking for a more unique design to project a corporate image.
Click to expand...

But I think that's more a factor of the general development environment changing in the past 40 odd years, more than a more recent shift towards speculative development.

No company builds and manages their own buildings these days, even if it has their name on it. Brookfield manages most (I think) of the downtown bank towers in the city. This leads to buildings being built in the most cost effective (read cheapest) way, while corporate towers/headquarters were once seen as a symbol of that companies power they are now viewed as simply utilitarian containers for their business functions. This along with the modernist/reductionist architectural movement has led to buildings that lack expensive ornimentation, styles, etc. Things that a mangement company would view as unecessary expenses as they don't contribute to increased productivity. And tenants don't care about those things since a) they are essentially looking for the cheapest rates, and typically these are buildings that don't have the extra add on touches, b) It's not their building so they are less concerned about the appearance.
 
threnody said:
I'm surprised nobody has noted its resemblance to the Maclean-Hunter building at 777 Bay. They have nearly identical proportions.
Click to expand...

Similar height (Telus is about 70 ft. higher plus fins) but MH is four sides of glass with virtually no details. Telus is much more interesting visually and personally, I much prefer the glass on Telus.

Maclean Hunter Building -
Click on the thumbnail to enlarge, then click again on the image for full size.



Photo from Urbandb - http://www.urbandb.com/canada/ontario/toronto/maclean_hunter_building/
 
Last edited:
Especially with the way it's connected to the rest of the College Park complex and sits on the podium it does, I don't see how the massing (or anything else, really) of 777 Bay is at all like Telus Tower.
 
I am on the side that Telus is a great addition to our city. For one, it is the appropriate size/height for its site; taller is not always better. The squat argument is without merit with me because the details, ground floor presence, interesting cube/rectangle feature on the sides and green features more than make up for its seemingly absent architectural flamboyance/skyline impact.

The colour is unique to the city. Had it been another blue or green glass box the argument might be stronger. However, this sterile grey colour does a lot beautify the building and by this I mean it looks clean, crisp and modern without pastiche or apologies.

Details matter. Residential and hotel construction often forsake details in order to get the tower built. Look at RoCP for an example of a taller building with very little attention to detail. Telus’ unique finishings and external details enhance the design on purpose, even if they have no functional meaning. These additions make the tower a more dynamic and fulsome addition to the city. I prefer this to a building that lacks detail but makes a bold and intrusive addition to the skyline, just for the sake of making a bold, intrusive addition to the skyline.
 
But I think that's more a factor of the general development environment changing in the past 40 odd years, more than a more recent shift towards speculative development.

No company builds and manages their own buildings these days, even if it has their name on it. Brookfield manages most (I think) of the downtown bank towers in the city. This leads to buildings being built in the most cost effective (read cheapest) way, while corporate towers/headquarters were once seen as a symbol of that companies power they are now viewed as simply utilitarian containers for their business functions. This along with the modernist/reductionist architectural movement has led to buildings that lack expensive ornimentation, styles, etc. Things that a mangement company would view as unecessary expenses as they don't contribute to increased productivity. And tenants don't care about those things since a) they are essentially looking for the cheapest rates, and typically these are buildings that don't have the extra add on touches, b) It's not their building so they are less concerned about the appearance.
Click to expand...

That's part of it. The other part is we just don't have enough super large companies to push for things like this. The most iconic of our towers happen to be the bank towers. Having another one or two companies like that based in the city could make a huge difference. I guess that's why some people keep talking about the rumoured Manulife super tall. A company like that would have the money to push for something iconic as a corporate branding exercise. KMPG, as a foreign owned branch cares less about their building downtown outside of cost and location, so Bay Adelaide is perfectly fine for them.
 
Conrad Black said:
That's part of it. The other part is we just don't have enough super large companies to push for things like this. The most iconic of our towers happen to be the bank towers. Having another one or two companies like that based in the city could make a huge difference. I guess that's why some people keep talking about the rumoured Manulife super tall. A company like that would have the money to push for something iconic as a corporate branding exercise. KMPG, as a foreign owned branch cares less about their building downtown outside of cost and location, so Bay Adelaide is perfectly fine for them.
Click to expand...

Conrad, I think the argument of Toronto not having enough of a corporate scene to allow for supertall construction is a load of hogwash. There exist numerous highrise clusters that could easily have been constructed as supertalls, but were never done so for whatever reason(s), of which I am unsure.

Brookfield Place, TD Centre and Royal Bank Plaza are all high end corporate headquarters which contain multiple highrises of varying heights. Built as single buildings, Toronto would have had 3 supertalls. There are also numerous developments under construction that are divided or split into seperate towers. Many feel that some areas in this city are not appropriate for massively tall structures. Why that is, I don't really know either.

I know many rant and rave over Toronto's potential to rank up there with the big boys of the world a la NYC, London, Paris etc. I say Toronto embrace supertall construction, but with bold, iconic design and architecture. If Toronto allows its buildings to reach for the heavens, similar to what Dubai is doing, maybe the world will slowly turn its eyes onto our city like never before. Towering structures do attract attention after all. We're proof of that on this forum are we not? ;)
 
To compare Toronto to Dubai or New York or Chicago is silly, and with very few exceptions we simply do not have the scale of mega corporation that exists in those places, nor the culture that breeds them. It's not a coinsidance that Toronto's tallest are banks and insurance companies, and more often now than not mixed-use condo/hotel.

I would agree, however, that the increasingly limited number of prime tower locations left in the heart of the financial district are not fulfilling height potential to the fullest. BA for instance should have been far taller, leaving the rest of the site for future taller buildings. Maybe there should be height requirements as well as limits zoned into this area?
 
I always thought that Toronto had some sort of height minimum or minimum uses per sq ft of plot area (I don't remember the technical term for it...). I think ideally anything West of Yonge, East of University, North of Front and South of Queen should be a minimum of 40 stories (if there's any development land left there). Then outside of this core anything West of say Jarvis, East of Bathurst/Spadina, North of the Lake and South of Bloor should be a minimum of 30 stories. Any thoughts?

WRT to multiple buildings vs one super tall. I've often wondered why RBC has a handful of buildings scattered throughout the city and the GTA in general, instead of one iconic supertall a-la FCP.

Also, in terms of development fears, is it worse to have only 20 out of 60 stories of an office tower leased out or to have only one out of 3 20 story towers leased out? In the end you are getting similar, or the same, leasing numbers but in one you have one building at 30% capacity, while in the other you have 1 building at 100% and 2 empties.
 
Conrad, I think the argument of Toronto not having enough of a corporate scene to allow for supertall construction is a load of hogwash. There exist numerous highrise clusters that could easily have been constructed as supertalls, but were never done so for whatever reason(s), of which I am unsure.
Click to expand...

Everything is easy when you don't fully appreciate why complexes are choosen over lone supertalls. (especially in this day and age of pension fund/reit ownership)

Not only is it cheaper to build out than up but phasing has all the advantages from pre-leasing, to financing construction, to earlier occupation, etc.

Toronto doesn't really have the anchors for a supertall and I wouldn't count on one of our large corporations to build a new signature headquarters when the money can be better invested into the business. You're also stuck with that location and space.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top