WislaHD said:
There are a lot of aspects I like about it, but please, give us some renderings without trees on them. They provide an unrealistic depiction of what will actually be built.
Click to expand...

torman404 said:
Agreed. There will be no trees.
Click to expand...

Where do you guys get that idea? When asked face to face about the risk of value engineering the trees out of KING, Bjarke Ingels himself not only said that the trees are an essential part of the building but also demonstrated how the soil support and irrigation system are so integral to the engineering of the building that it can’t just be cut out without redesigning the whole thing.

Besides, you can see here an example of his actual built work that included trees on terraces how it was in fact built that way.

177152


177153
177154
 
MetroMan said:
Where do you guys get that idea? When asked face to face about the risk of value engineering the trees out of KING, Bjarke Ingels himself not only said that the trees are an essential part of the building but also demonstrated how the soil support and irrigation system are so integral to the engineering of the building that it can’t just be cut out without redesigning the whole thing.

Besides, you can see here an example of his actual built work that included trees on terraces how it was in fact built that way.
Click to expand...

It's not that trees at rooftops aren't possible - but whether it can be pulled off at a top of a 200m+ tower without wind barriers.

AoD
 
Structural expressionism, visible elevators, bold rectilinear with the blocky top. And trees. Very nice. I like.

Though do agree with others she's a tad thick. Also with the trees, why are they showing deciduous up there? It's hurricane force, leaves would be ripped right off. And 60% of the year they'd be leaf-less trunks. So why not evergreens, because they're ever green. That'd be nice.
 
Well, there's a pretty stark difference between the engineering and purpose of the foliage on KING and this project. On KING, it's designed to cover virtually the entire facade and act as a main visual element. On this project, not so much. Not saying I don't like it, simply that I wouldn't equate the certainty of foliage on KING to the likelihood of trees on this project.

That said, I would imagine that substantial efforts would be made on both the part of Westbank and BIG to stay true to the original foliage rooftop (which looks great in my opinion). Perhaps shrubbery, grass, vines, etc would last longer than trees. As well, some night lighting would look quite nice on the top highlighting the plants!

MetroMan said:
Where do you guys get that idea? When asked face to face about the risk of value engineering the trees out of KING, Bjarke Ingels himself not only said that the trees are an essential part of the building but also demonstrated how the soil support and irrigation system are so integral to the engineering of the building that it can’t just be cut out without redesigning the whole thing.

Besides, you can see here an example of his actual built work that included trees on terraces how it was in fact built that way.

View attachment 177152

View attachment 177153View attachment 177154
Click to expand...

Also - unrelated to foliage - I'm going to play devil's advocate and say I don't mind the thickness. It reminds me of the massing of the beautiful modernist TD buildings. I don't think it's inappropriate at all. And those elevator lights! Excellent.
 
wow this thing will have a light show. check out the animation in the article.
"An animated rendering of the Union Centre's elevator 'light show' that will be visible to pedestrians in Toronto."
www.theglobeandmail.com

Two new office towers that will reshape downtown Toronto and Vancouver

The buildings are centrally located near transit, linked to clean energy and the fastest possible broadband, offering big office floors for easy collaboration, and built to have some easy back-and-forth with the city around them
www.theglobeandmail.com www.theglobeandmail.com
 
ushahid said:
no front story and updated database yet? it's always fun to read those.
Click to expand...
travis3000 said:
Where's the article on this?
Click to expand...
We have been waiting on higher-res images. I'm also looking for more of the details like exact height, etc., that you expect from an UrbanToronto article!

42
 
ushahid said:
wow this thing will have a light show. check out the animation in the article.
"An animated rendering of the Union Centre's elevator 'light show' that will be visible to pedestrians in Toronto."
www.theglobeandmail.com

Two new office towers that will reshape downtown Toronto and Vancouver

The buildings are centrally located near transit, linked to clean energy and the fastest possible broadband, offering big office floors for easy collaboration, and built to have some easy back-and-forth with the city around them
www.theglobeandmail.com www.theglobeandmail.com
Click to expand...
Those lights don't look like elevators... And why are they shown on the South and West sides of the building? Something tells me that that render is a long way from what we'll get.
 
Pretty banal design by BIG standards. I see why "utilitarian" was their key word here. I don't mind the bold & blocky look, but the proportions and slope of the crown need to be refined. I'd also have hoped and expected to see a different colour or material than blue glass from BIG, so that's a disappointment. I'm dreading the hyper sterility of Southcore inevitably spreading to the rest of our cityscape.
 
A flyover and zoom-in:


The view from the islands:

177174
 
It sounds like they are going to attempt something a little more interesting at ground level than the usual anaemic tree and granite pavers that Toronto commercial developers pass off as "contributions to the public realm." This is so much more important than trees sticking out on the 40th floor. For that reason alone, I look forward to this project.
 
I'll bet there will be updated iterations of this project in the coming years. Maybe 3 verticals instead of 5. It's way too wide as shown above. There won't be any trees on top, for long anyway. They would end up on Front st. in short order.
This project is a long ways off, and many changes to come.
 
What is the sense of the likelihood of finding sufficient tenants to get this off the ground in the near-term (given competing buildings going up)?
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top