[interchange42]

Just wondering, is the precast supposed to match the HNR building's colour?

I don't think so. They could have specified a similarly coloured precast, but they went with something pinker. Each of the three buildings in the complex now have their own colouration: parsley on mashed potatoes, crème caramel, and mole sauce on poached salmon. As a meal, that's all coming right back up.

42

 

[P23]

Dark grey and salmon are just not colours that go together. They could work on different buildings but it's beyond me why they combined them here.

 

[interchange42]

They are using chocolate brown on Velocity, not dark gray.

42

 

[P23]

Yikes, even worse. I've only seen photos and it looks grey there.

 

[modernizt]

Bronze mullions, brown spandrel panels, and salmon precast. I still can't comprehend this.

#ArchitectsBehavingBadly

 

[A Torontonian Now]

Bronze mullions, brown spandrel panels, and salmon precast. I still can't comprehend this.

#ArchitectsBehavingBadly

Exactly. An equally cheap but far less offensive building could have been constructed with better colour choices.

 

[kicked it in the sun]

maybe they bought the cheapest panels they could get in the volume they needed. like deep discount on the lowest demand, sort of bargain bin ones. not joking, builders do this all the time.

 

[Cityminded]

July 14:

View attachment 81168

I think this project is more in keeping with New York’s Union Square than Toronto’s Dundas Square. And that might be partly why it seems to draw criticism.

Look at the gray modernism of the Omni building next door, and the gray expanse of Dundas Square in front. This is the Toronto we’re used to. Now look at the project. The heritage elements are actual tall buildings. They actually retain their forms, not just their facades. The new tower has a distinct colour and materiality – warm earth tones and some masonry (okay, pre-cast) – giving it a sense of character that plays off the older portions in a certain way, neither fading into the background nor overwhelming them.

For me, the overall effect is a congenial grouping of old and new, more like the lively, jostling streetscape of Manhattan than the formal modernism favoured by Toronto, where we like to squash little heritage facades with huge gray boxes. So yes – this project just doesn’t fit in here, and maybe that’s why some people are shunning it.

 

[P23]

I don't think anyone is harping on it for not being grey like everything else. Some warm tones would be welcome, they just aren't applied very well here. To be honest I like the massing and its presence in the square (except that overhang at the top), it's the materials that are lacking.

 

[interchange42]

I think this project is more in keeping with New York’s Union Square than Toronto’s Dundas Square. And that might be partly why it seems to draw criticism.

<snip>

So yes – this project just doesn’t fit in here, and maybe that’s why some people are shunning it.

For me, it's the masses of cheap back-painted spandrel walls and relatively small windows that consign this to the offenders list.

Meanwhile, the precast now going up on it near ground level, is actually rather fun:

42

 

[zcczcczcc]

Kind of looks like they left the wet panels out on the driving range for target practice

 

[ProjectEnd]

I think this project is more in keeping with New York’s Union Square than Toronto’s Dundas Square. And that might be partly why it seems to draw criticism.

Look at the gray modernism of the Omni building next door, and the gray expanse of Dundas Square in front. This is the Toronto we’re used to. Now look at the project. The heritage elements are actual tall buildings. They actually retain their forms, not just their facades. The new tower has a distinct colour and materiality – warm earth tones and some masonry (okay, pre-cast) – giving it a sense of character that plays off the older portions in a certain way, neither fading into the background nor overwhelming them.

For me, the overall effect is a congenial grouping of old and new, more like the lively, jostling streetscape of Manhattan than the formal modernism favoured by Toronto, where we like to squash little heritage facades with huge gray boxes. So yes – this project just doesn’t fit in here, and maybe that’s why some people are shunning it.

What are you talking about?

 

[neuhaus]

I could picture people sticking used gum or putting their cigarettes out in those dimples.

 

[officedweller]

...
Look at the gray modernism of the Omni building next door, and the gray expanse of Dundas Square in front. This is the Toronto we’re used to. Now look at the project. The heritage elements are actual tall buildings. They actually retain their forms, not just their facades. The new tower has a distinct colour and materiality – warm earth tones and some masonry (okay, pre-cast) – giving it a sense of character that plays off the older portions in a certain way, neither fading into the background nor overwhelming them.
....

I tend to agree.

The heritage building are heavy on vertical elements.
So nix a the usual Toronto Modern style of banded wrap-around balconies - that would clash.
That also eliminates some LEED advantages derived from balcony shading, so on the sides without balconies, they need to use spandrel to reduce vision glass / solar gain.

The heritage buildings are both variations of beige, with the HNR building being quite "warm" in tone.
So nix blue or gray which, despite what some people may think, don't blend with warm colours
(at least not in a heritage context).
I suppose it's an architectural/artistic choice whether to "blend" or "contrast".

But you still need some contrast - can't have a beige tower behind beige heritage buildings.
Hence, the warm dark spandrel and mullions, with a lighter element (pink-ish precast) to tie back to the heritage buildings without being matchy-matchy on colour..

 

[interchange42]

Nobody needs to use spandrel glass. People choose to use spandrel glass. Sometimes it works, but for vast expanses there are plenty of other far more attractive options.

42