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.
42
