The problem with this whole development (discussed months ago) is that the site had very 'extensive' development 'allowances' due to an OMB decision from the 1990s and if the developer had built what he had 'of right' it would probably be an even worse mess than it is. It is still beyond me how what may have been acceptable 30 years ago could ever be the base line of what is acceptable now but we also live in a world where a building permit, once issued, never seems to expire.
The white and black panels are not the most unattractive part of the building, but it would have been preferable if they had warmer tones and/or actual color, like most of the area surrounding them. The reason that they look better than the building next door is because they're new. If those white panels get dirty and aren't cleaned they'll look brutal (though they're probably easier to keep clean than the building next door). The brutal part is all the grey spandrel, with no color and no texture (it's not even the better looking more reflective type). Just cheap, soulless filler that looks worse than anything else in that neighborhood....and the worst part is that they have so much of it on the ground level where everyone will be looking at it - some other developers will at least put in some precast brick or curtain wall at grade, and leave the depressing looking back-painted grey spandrel to the tower(s).
That it 's taking a ton of criticism over all should raise alarm that the design elements of this building is problematic. In comparison to The One for example, even its biggest detractors don't seem to have an issue of how it looks both in render and construction. So while individual dislikes of this building are indeed subjective, it's that multiple posters are having the same issues with this suggests that it's problematic for good reasons. You know, trees meet forest.
Pointing out that an apple is rotten isn't subjective, it's a fact.
Some people don't mind eating rotten apples.
Yes the project can be objectively bad while you still subjectively like it and vice versa.
Though I too like to see more density in the core, I think one needs to look at more than density but should also evaluate how the building contributes to and fits into its neighbourhood. Some may contribute by simply 'fitting in' and by being (essentially) invisible, others by creating 'iconic' architecture, some by providing vital public space or services. Obviously some buildings are first class (I would put the CIBC building into this category) but suggest you hold off on your enthusiasm for The One - it is FAR from finished and how it will look when completed cannot yet be assessed properly. Renderings and plans give one clues but it is only when one sees the finished product that can one really judge. (Though that does not stop any of us around here from doing so, of course!)
I try to hold off judging any of the buildings fully until they are almost complete, as in the early stages it's too hard to tell what the final product will look like. My assessment of The One was in response to the other members saying the materials are "first class" and things of that nature.
