[Platform 27]

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

Actually, all things being equal, I'd score Wallman fairly middle of the pack on the conservameter. Rêve, Bisha and Yards at Fort York all seem to start with relatively straightforward neomodernist DNA, but then spin off in more unusual directions on account of cladding and finishes choices. Assuming 120 Harbour doesn't get hit with the cheapening(tm), it should slot into that family fairly easily.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

27:

Don't get me wrong, I don't have much of an issue with the quality of his work - I think they are all very servicable, but clearly not envelope-pushing. In that sense of the word, it fits into the general Toronto Neo-Modernist "cabal" of DS/KPMB/aA - all of whom have used interesting architectural flourishes along similiar lines. Conservative does not = bad by default in my books.

AoD

 

[Tewder]

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.

The unique shape of the site does seem to provide an interesting opportunity for a non-box form. Now, maybe somebody can tell us why a wedge/flat Iron shape would simply not work from a return-on-investment point of view?

The other interesting issue that comes up though is when is a box not a box? Is the Empire State Building a box? The Chrysler Building?? Probably they are, right? However they do not read as boxes, even if the departure from boxiness is merely at the apex...

120-130 Harbour is a box, and as boxy as boxy gets... well, except for the podium. The interest is largely in the cladding and not the form.

 

[interchange42]

City Planning has told Tridel not to do a big wedge/flat-iron here: too many southerly views from Ãce, etc., would be blocked and too many northerly views from Waterclub, etc., would be blocked. Tridel was also informed that wind loads on a long, thin wedge would require massive strengthening of the core, and therefore a much more expensive building.

42

 

[ProjectEnd]

The unique shape of the site does seem to provide an interesting opportunity for a non-box form. Now, maybe somebody can tell us why a wedge/flat Iron shape would simply not work from a return-on-investment point of view?

The other interesting issue that comes up though is when is a box not a box? Is the Empire State Building a box? The Chrysler Building?? Probably they are, right? However they do not read as boxes, even if the departure from boxiness is merely at the apex...

120-130 Harbour is a box, and as boxy as boxy gets... well, except for the podium. The interest is largely in the cladding and not the form.

You are correct. Even if their crowns are read as spires or triangles of sorts, the bodies and podiums of both those iconic structures are boxes and are meant to be read as such. T'was the height of the classic, tripartite skyscraper after all.

 

[scrapergeek]

I'm the first to admit that I'm a dreamer and that the market, developers' costs and technical challenges can limit what gets built, but I'd like to be surprised once in a while. Real creativity should step in to overcome these challenges and still provide more visual appeal.

I'm still holding out for something special at 90 Harbour...

 

[greenleaf]

City Planning has told Tridel not to do a big wedge/flat-iron here: too many southerly views from Ãce, etc., would be blocked and too many northerly views from Waterclub, etc., would be blocked. Tridel was also informed that wind loads on a long, thin wedge would require massive strengthening of the core, and therefore a much more expensive building.

42

Wind loads, fine. But, city planning brought up view issues? Seriously? That is opening up a can of worms, isn't it?

 

[caltrane74]

I thought the city was trying to encourage point towers, to minimize the impact of shadowing. - If the city didn't could get New York dark here in a minute.

 

[Silence&Motion]

I'm happy they're not going with a flat-iron design for the tower. The only people who would actually get the dramatic point view would be the people driving east on the Gardiner (who hopefully will be keeping their eyes mostly on the road). Everyone else would just see a wide, flat building blocking views south to the lake and north to the rest of the skyline.

 

[condovo]

^^ Bingo!

 

[kris]

make the top shaped like the L tower and its alot better

 

[ssiguy2]

Renderings

Update!.....this may not go ahead because the 60s just called and they want their building back.

 

[Tewder]

I'm happy they're not going with a flat-iron design for the tower. The only people who would actually get the dramatic point view would be the people driving east on the Gardiner (who hopefully will be keeping their eyes mostly on the road). Everyone else would just see a wide, flat building blocking views south to the lake and north to the rest of the skyline.

I'm not sure I get your point, I mean you can only perceive the flat-ironyness of the Gooderham Building from one side too. That's the nature of a flat iron building, no?... and how does a wedge shape block more views than a box shape if the width of the largest side of a wedge is equal to the width of a box??

... and just to keep going with this for giggles why does a wedge have to have sharp points? Wouldn't rounded points along the lines of a Lake Point Tower in Chicago provide more strength, addressing the wind resistance issue?

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

You can have a truncated wedge - but for it to look like one it probably can't be truncated too much - rounded or not wouldn't make a difference. For a wedge to look like a wedge, you'd probably have to have a significant length to width ratio. Keep in mind that unless you have a wide lot, you will be dealing with a rather acute wedge that leave a lot of unusable space.

If you use Lake Point Tower as an example. you'd find that the "rounded wedge" is almost as wide as the core:

http://lakepointtower.wordpress.com/2009/06/12/how-lake-point-tower-got-its-name/#more-318

In other words, it's not a wedge - it's a protypical Y tower with rounded corners.

AoD

 

[scrapergeek]

Aerial view of Toronto skyline circa 2050...