EASILY one of the most uninspiring buildings I have ever seen!


4100913500_8ea42283df_o.jpg




I know, let's build it in a very public space so we can show the world what architectural nimrods we are.
 
and in that vein I advocate that Emaar (builders of the Burj Dubai) swoop in with guns blazing, and that they put up a 60 floor Alsop or Hadid or Nouvel or Rogers or Behnisch here. Oh hell, this is Dundas Square: even another Libeskind would work here.
Click to expand...

Emaar? Emaar is far more likely to hire Kirkor, G+C, or P+S for some 45 floor "World of Yonge" inspiration. Anywho, m'thinks, we'll see soon enough.
 
adma said:
As always seems to be the case in UT, the issue is over presenting Jack Diamond as the second coming of Huang & Danczkay, or something. *Those* are the grounds on which I feel the anti-JD arguments are overwrought.
Click to expand...

I don't think anyone is suggesting Jack Diamond is a bad architect. But there is a contingent on the site (it may be a contingent of one) that feels he can do absolutely no wrong.
 
maestro said:
Emaar? Emaar is far more likely to hire Kirkor, G+C, or P+S for some 45 floor "World of Yonge" inspiration. Anywho, m'thinks, we'll see soon enough.
Click to expand...

Emaar hired SOM for the Burj... and you don't know who they'd hire.

Anyway, I just wanted a huge Gulf State developer to invoke for my ridiculous little fantasy, 'tis all.

42
 
It seems obvious to me the blank walls are to cover city fire policy--you can't have much glazing above old and potential fire trap buildings. Am I correct?

Building looks okay--a sort of vertical interpretation of the starkness of the square itself.

(Could be red brick by Nomade of course much better.)
 
interchange42 said:
As much as I like good Diamond, and yes, Jack has hammered together a number of excellent buildings chez nous, I do not see the need to put a suit and tie on a building at this square, as Jack always does (even if some of the suits are a tad cheap sometimes). This is a site for building the coolest t-shirt you've ever seen, something, anything, to distract eyeballs from the wife-beater on the north side of the Square.

42
Click to expand...

Yes, yes!! Or a sequined boob-tube!
 
from Urbanation's twitter site:

Heritage buildings at 19 and 21 Dundas Square to be preserved as part of HNR Properties' 39-storey tower at 252-258 Victoria Street per City

about 4 hours ago from web ​
 
I have no problem with the 2 Victoria buildings been torn down as they don't fit in now.

The 2 Dundas building must stay. Fixing them up will bring them back to life.

With this saw off, it would be nice to see a taller building than the plan one.
 
urbandreamer said:
It seems obvious to me the blank walls are to cover city fire policy--you can't have much glazing above old and potential fire trap buildings. Am I correct?

Building looks okay--a sort of vertical interpretation of the starkness of the square itself.

(Could be red brick by Nomade of course much better.)
Click to expand...
I don't think there's any such policy. There are plenty of examples of new glass structures rising out of old, besides, this building does have glass along the north wall. You're probably thinking of the provincial (not city) Fire Code and Building Code, which require higher fire ratings for walls that are right next to property lines. That usually means no windows. But since one developer owns the entire site, that's a moot point. I'd say the beige side is an attempt to "respect" the heritage architecture. A misguided attempt, imo - it ends up blending in with the old buildings and overwhelming them at the same time. I'd rather see them build something ultra glassy and modern. That would contrast with the older buildings and make them stand out more.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top