Density distribution is overreaching.
I think it will end up with one(taller?) office tower, one mixed office/condo and one fully residential rental apts., all with, hopefully, decently programmed podium and park deck.
IMHO that's how it will play out.
^The article says 54 and 44 storey residential towers

i like the scope of the project but design is a bit immature, i hope it matures by 2023.
The heights are dizzying. The towers aren't boxes. The decked park is great. However, I find the towers' cramped together and not a very friendly scale overall. I can envision Front Street as a giant massive wall of glass.

Agreed. I get the sense that the towers curve at the tops only to provide breathing room from each other.
Agreed also that the design looks dated (but if they went with angular towers, it would be called Hudson Yards II.

WRT tower placement, I would prefer if the tallest tower was away from the CN Tower (ie middle tower) - allowing the CN Tower to stand apart, rather than building up to it (presumably building up on both sides when Phase 2 is built.
Last edited:
(but if they went with angular towers, it would be called Hudson Yards II.

Classic strawman argument - the suggestion that the only possibilities were the design we're getting, or a design that mimics Hudson Yards. There are thousands of architects and infinite possibilities for a realistic budget. Yes, any project we get will have its detractors or criticisms, but this project looks straight-up dated and bland.
My bad, yes, two res towers. From tonight:

Definitely agree- I find the project a bit too cramped- I would rather push the floor space into two larger and more widely spaced towers.

Also think there should be an outdoor mid-block public connection to the park, as having more entryways to the park will ensure its success.
There are two connections from Front to the park; one between the office and residential towers, and the other an indoor one through the winter garden.

I'm not worried about the building separations, despite not seeing any actually numbers yet. The two office towers can be closer together than "normal" 25 metres and still be fine: there are no real privacy concerns there as with residential towers, and the peeling apart as they rise pretty much takes care of that anyway. They'll also bring enough light down between them with their reflective cladding.

That said, I am not a fan. This does all look dated and third rate to me: the podium around the residential towers in particular looks maximized for stuffing it into planning envelopes with little heed paid to any architectural grace, and the materials—other than rounded glass corner windows in the north residential tower—look like they came back on the market, cheap, from a canceled Vaughan condo. The peeled-back office towers reference the curves of SkyDome's retractable roof, but do they really create an architectural dialogue of any note? Not especially; they seem to flap in the wind up top, when, if you're adjacent to such a mammoth bunker like the SkyDome, they need to be equally architecturally assertive. They need to be more "arch", more over-the-top—not in a fussy way though, but in with one simple and bold move each—that has some confidence. It would help if they weren't all glass.

Oxford is doing a god job with Rogers Stirk Harbour + Partners at The Hub (other than it should be 20 floors taller): that building has the diagonal hanger thing going on from the central exoskeletal piers, and the boldly coloured elevator banks. That's assertive. They need assertive here too.