March 29, 2020

20200329_172333.jpg
20200329_172353.jpg
20200329_172420.jpg
20200329_172453.jpg
20200329_172602.jpg
 
Another horrendous project to add to the rogues' gallery of horrendous projects fanning out from College and Spadina.
 
I must be a philistine because I like the look of this one. No horizontal mullions, no spandrel glass on the tower, solid (i.e. non-glass) materials, dark colour, simple design gesture... solid B+ in my opinion.
 
They couldn't even be bothered to indent the areas glazed with black glass a half meter... that alone would have given the tower some dimensionality or a spatial quality - especially at the corners. Instead it's just a repeating floorplate dressed up to pretend it's not. Another tower that is about maximizing GFA / saleable area and nothing else - no real urbanistic or architectural aspirations beyond a window-wall skin.
 
Yes, but that is the name of the game when it comes to res. towers. This is no masterpiece, but decrying Parallax for not giving away salable area in service of a design decision is a little silly.
 
ProjectEnd said:
Yes, but that is the name of the game when it comes to res. towers. This is no masterpiece, but decrying Parallax for not giving away salable area in service of a design decision is a little silly.
Click to expand...

It's silly? That's a weird flex. I work on these types of projects - multi-res. You have to chip away some area to develop an architectural expression - if you can't give up even 500mm here and there, then every tower would be without any articulation beyond its zoning envelope. You work within an envelope and you work within a developer's pro forma but you find what articulates an architectural concept but sacrifices minimal saleable/GFA.

That's how every multi-res. design in the city is done- the extent of which is defined by a developer's ability to develop a realistic pro forma, their level of interest in architectural or urbanistic legacy, and the design team's abilities.

My comment stands - the motif of alternating darker and lighter sections would be far more effective with some sort of actual spatial articulation instead of just a graphic - a surface-level change in colour of material.
 
I know. Part of the reason I don't do multi-res anymore is because I couldn't stand the cuts. You're absolutely correct in that it shouldn't be an issue to give up 500mm here or there in the name of expression but many aren't willing to give up anything at all. Part of the reason people engage your firm vs. a Kirkor or a G+C is because they understand that they will get a better building out of it and are willing to play along. If that's not something you as a developer care about (Shiu Pong, et. al), they're not bothering with you, they're going to the others.

We're in no disagreement that it would be a better building were it afforded more expression, but Parallax didn't seem to think so and are squeezing every bit of salable GFA out of it.
 
Ramako said:
I must be a philistine because I like the look of this one. No horizontal mullions, no spandrel glass on the tower, solid (i.e. non-glass) materials, dark colour, simple design gesture... solid B+ in my opinion.
Click to expand...

I'll join you here.
 
The building for some reason looks better here in photos than it does in person.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top