Yegger said:
For such a prominent site, the proposal lacks a grand vision in my opinion. It is very clear that the design team was not looking internationally for inspiration, projects in South America and Asia come to mind.
Click to expand...
The design team is international, only works internationally. It would be pretty hard for them to divorce themselves from the work they've already completed around the world. There are Pelli Clarke Pelli signatures in the design—there are swoops and curved corners and glassed-in atriums, all reflective of their worldwide work—the issue here is that this design simply isn't up to scratch yet, and they need to rethink a number of their choices.

42
 
interchange42 said:
I like their suggestion that the taller office tower should be the one to the west. I like the suggestion that the north side should not look like 'the back', that the park should be more significant, that the complex needs finer grain at ground level, that the winter garden should reach out more, etc. I like just about all of the suggestions.

42
Click to expand...

I agree that with the North side needing to be refined. I don't think the bigger tower should go in the middle. It would look a bit like giving the finger to the City... The shadow studies also suggest that the west office tower is *just* scraping Clarence Square with incremental shadow --- moving the bigger tower west would increase this intrusion.
 
The front of this complex reminds me of suburban smaller forms of twin office buildings, joined by a glass atrium, with a large parking lot in front.

(it certainly looks like it was designed with a parking lot in front, as opposed to being part of an urban environment)
 
A close friend commented on the south park/deck (I'll leave the north side to others):

Don't mind the swoopy towers but can't figure the giant atrium... looks like a giant transportation hub.
Any project that builds over the rail corridor gets mega bonus points.

I'm hoping the park/deck mayhem depicted is more a rendering placeholder by overworked/stoned artist, rather than a design.

Something this big needs the touch of a Cormier or other landscape master to make it great.
 
Here, for quick reference, is the new park design (as seen in the front page story)…

UnionPkPkNW1667.jpg


Amongst other things, the shade trellises have been completely redesigned, and the copycat TORONTO sign is gone.

…and this is a new rendering of the Front Street interface with the complex which was part of the DRP package, but not included in the article:

UnionPkFrotnStS1667.jpg


Note in this image that the atrium interior space is far more fleshed out now.

42
 
The Front Street entrance looks so sterile it's not even funny, and that "park" reminds me of the renovated College Park...but a worse version of it.

Honestly this whole design leaves a lot to be desired.
 
old boy said:
After the tall, iconic CN tower, really what other buildings in Toronto can be considered a " signature " ? The new proposals are all very similar in overall height so they won't stand out on height alone. I just hope they won't end up appearing chunky in order to achieve maximum floor spaces.
Click to expand...

KING Toronto, and M+G
 
You're right it does look cheap. The podium should have more solid Stone walls look then glass. That would make building solid-looking.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top