Solaris said:
seeing the rendering in better resolution (thanks Ed), I think the vertical white strips accents won't realistically be visible when the building is built because the rendering is showing as if all the units in 1 particular column of suites all has this 1 light turned on at the same time (which we know that never happens) ... so the vertically aligned projecting 'box' windows may not be all that pronounced, unless it is white fritted glass in these areas
Click to expand...

I just read the article on the main page. It mentioned, "Cladding the protruding stacks in a lighter material is also being considered to ensure that those stacks are legible in daylight hours, as well as the evening hours when interior lights make them more easily discenrnable." I do hope they go through with using a lighter material on those stacks and not go the route of 'the cheapening'.
 
Last edited:
This is not what I was hoping for at this location. I know this is preliminary, but knowing Wallman’s love of the box, I doubt it’ll change much.

For thousands of people, this building will be the most prominent structure as they enter downtown Toronto from the west on the Gardiner. This building does not say "Welcome to downtown Toronto, a forward-thinking cutting-edge city", it says, "Welcome to Boxville".

This offers little more on the generic formula being pasted everywhere downtown, and shows absolutely zero imagination on behalf of the architects. I would have hoped they’d want to showcase their best work here. This could’ve been a perfect location to show a futuristic-looking masterpiece to the world, but we will undoubtedly get nothing memorable. Other cites are simply leaving us behind. This is stale modernism that had its day long ago.
 
Last edited:
scrapergeek said:
Disappointing. This is a prime spot for something exceptional, and we just get a slightly dressed up box. I'm losing faith in local architects.
Click to expand...

Then take your ball and go home.

wmedia said:
This is not what I was hoping for at this location. I know this is preliminary, but knowing Wallman’s love of the box, I doubt it’ll change much.

For thousands of people, this building will be the most prominent structure as they enter downtown Toronto from the west on the Gardiner. This building does not say "Welcome to downtown Toronto, a forward-thinking cutting-edge city", it says, "Welcome to Boxville".

This offers little more on the generic formula being pasted everywhere downtown, and shows absolutely zero imagination on behalf of the architects. I would have hoped they’d want to showcase their best work here. This could’ve been a perfect location to show a futuristic-looking masterpiece to the world, but we will undoubtedly get nothing memorable. Other cites are simply leaving us behind. This is stale modernism that had its day long ago.
Click to expand...

Why infer that 'Boxville' can't be the "...forward-thinking, cutting-edge city' you claim Toronto isn't? Why loose the sure footing gained by making a subjective critique of a building you dislike and begin treading in dangerous water by linking it to a supposedly-objective criticism of the level of 'imagination' in our local design culture or of boxes in general?

Critiquing a particular building and critiquing a form, or the idea of rectilinearity in architecture generally, are two different things and as of now you're simply on the wrong side. You'd have more success focusing your ire on what you don't like about this building rather than claiming that the form which 90% of architecture around the globe takes is somehow unfit for our fair shores and represents a lag in our designers' creative process. In that vein, though this is hardly the place for a showdown, what sort of CAD-o-matic surprise did either of you expect to see here?
 
ProjectEnd said:
Why infer that 'Boxville' can't be the "...forward-thinking, cutting-edge city' you claim Toronto isn't?
Click to expand...

Simply because this location demands a building that makes a statement. This says nothing other than "I'm tall, but ignore me, because I'm boring." It's a building by an architect playing to other architects, and those with an obsessive compulsive disorder towards boxes and minimalism. This is not a building for the public to enjoy. It adds nothing to its surroundings other than its size.

There are plenty of well implemented boxes in this city (X condo, Four Seasons), and a myriad of mediocre boxes (Spire, Murano, etc), but come on Toronto, it's time to shake off this grey conservatism and add some flair.
 
Last edited:
AlvinofDiaspar said:
Actually, a better question is why does this location demand a 75s - I don't believe the case for that has been made.

AoD
Click to expand...

My pre-disposition is to go tall unless there's a reason not to, so my question to you is, why are you opposed to 75s at this location?
 
Last edited:
Ramako:

Increased density/height comes with increased impacts on the natural, built and social environments, all of which remains to be evaluated. Besides, planning don't operate on your pre-disposition - and as much as I would support moving towards a minimum density requirement for developments in the city where appropriate, I suspect this proposal goes far beyond the intent on such schemes.

AoD
 
This doesn't exploit the triangular site very well. I think many UT posters have suggested more interesting approaches than the one presented in this proposal.

Reality is that there will be several redesigns before the projected 2015 start. I will bet that the finished product looks nothing like this.
 
I actually really like this proposal. Sure, it's boxy, but it has an imposing feel to it. That being said, I don't think that it really takes advantage of the triangular site very well, and would rather see something that does. 75 storey flatiron building? :)
 
I like it too....
 
I don't hate this design, and it should be quite striking provided quality materials are used to pull off the concept for the cladding.

... and I don't think we should come down too hard on those who are disappointed in it. The built form in Toronto has been extremely conservative throughout this latest building boom, at least in terms of skyscrapers, and where this may suit many just fine it isn't entirely unreasonable that scraper geeks might like to see at least one 'game changer' on the rise, whatever that may be... which is sort of the point of game changers in that we don't typically know one until we see one. In other words many here are waiting for that defining icon to grace the skyline and no matter how tasteful or Toronto-appropriate or well executed the elegant minimalist boxes might be they do not satisfy this longing, this need. Then again, maybe the L Tower should suffice, or 1 Bloor, yet I suspect that a true game-changing icon, if it truly is one, would win most everybody over no matter how attached to a minimalist design language.
 
scapergeek:

Why blame the architect when it's probably the client who demanded such conservatism? The client didn't chose Libeskind, Foster or Piano afterall. Or even someone local (sic Canadian) like Teeple or Patkau or Saucier+Perrotte known for more cutting edge designs.

AoD
 
Last edited:
AlvinofDiaspar said:
Actually, a better question is why does this location demand a 75s - I don't believe the case for that has been made.

AoD
Click to expand...


I think the reason they are going for 75 Floors is the maximize their return on what they paid for the land. - So if they paid 75 million or 90 million for the site, they probably took that cost into consideration when planning the structure. - Also they are using the other proposals and buildings in the area to determine what they can get away with. So you will have three 70 storey buildings, 1 under construction the other two proposed, and then a set of 55 storey towers that already have been built, they figure they can make a pretty convincing argument that this site should be allowed 75 floors.
 
Indeed it is the client who chooses the architect, but it seems dubious to suggest that any one of the architects in Alvin's post wouldn't give us something rectilinear. Sure, it could be an angled box (Libeskind), a slick, high-tech box (Foster), a highly-refined box (Piano), a box with boxes stuck to it (Teeple), an invisible box (Patkau has never done high-rise, not that they couldn't) or an intruded and extruded set of stacked boxes (S+P) but in the end, the base form remains.

What's particularly annoying about this 'boxes-are-the-worst' hogwash is that the architects detractors look to for the illusive 'something better' often employ boxes in their architectural language, sometimes exclusively. It would be wise to take a second to look into the design vocabulary employed by those who some feel would give us a better product before suggesting that they would woo us with 'hey, look at me' shapes and more 'creative' forms.

Do I think that Piano or Foster or the like would give us a better building? Almost certainly. Do I believe that it would depart radically from the form (box) Wallman has authored? Almost certainly not.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top