Toronto L-Tower | 204.82m | 58s | Cityzen | Daniel Libeskind

[Bruvyman]

Sigh...



That's nice and all, but it doesn't change the fact that they have ruined a potentially gorgeous building by the use of horrendously ugly cladding.

The subjective issue of the building being aesthetically "ruined" can not be proclaimed as fact ever, let alone before the structure is even half done with only a few panes of glass installed. There is far too much of this sort of knee-jerkedness around this place. Ridiculous and unproductive.

 

[steveve]

17 Feb.

this angle is gonna be so prime for L tower. some nice blend of architecture styles in the view as well...

backstage is gonna be awkward.

 

[Bruvyman]

this angle is gonna be so prime for L tower. some nice blend of architecture styles in the view as well...

backstage is gonna be awkward.

I agree, but am curious about backstage. I wonder how it and L are going to hide the Flatiron from the west perspective.

Has anyone confirmed that the North Face will be clad in a different manner than the other sides? Curtainwall?

 

[ahmad.m.atiya]

The subjective issue of the building being aesthetically "ruined" can not be proclaimed as fact ever, let alone before the structure is even half done with only a few panes of glass installed. There is far too much of this sort of knee-jerkedness around this place. Ridiculous and unproductive.

It can be proclaimed as a fact when the ratio of the cladding's cost to the building's structural cost is used. That would be an objective and legitimate observation.

Not that I have those numbers or anything, but I'm gonna guess that this building's "cladding cost:building cost" ratio is significantly below that of the average development, let alone other high end developments in the area. It's the equivalent of buying a rolls royce and adding 15" hubcaps.

 

[Bruvyman]

It can be proclaimed as a fact when the ratio of the cladding's cost to the building's structural cost is used. That would be an objective and legitimate observation.


Not that I have those numbers or anything, but I'm gonna guess that this building's "cladding cost:building cost" ratio is significantly below that of the average development, let alone other high end developments in the area. It's the equivalent of buying a rolls royce and adding 15" hubcaps.

Still ridiculous. Your statement is the equivalent of seeing a half-finished rolls royce on the assembly line and stating as fact that a potentially gorgeous vehicle was already ruined by the addition of 15" hubcaps which you had neither yet seen or had knowledge of.

Can you answer the questions I asked above in post #2823? If not, then you have no business making any sweeping proclamations on the finished product. All you have to go on are a few pieces of cladding from a couple sides of the building, a lot of guessing, and understandably low expectations.

 

[dcc008]

It can be proclaimed as a fact when the ratio of the cladding's cost to the building's structural cost is used. That would be an objective and legitimate observation.

Not that I have those numbers or anything, but I'm gonna guess that this building's "cladding cost:building cost" ratio is significantly below that of the average development, let alone other high end developments in the area. It's the equivalent of buying a rolls royce and adding 15" hubcaps.

LOL you made up a ratio to judge the building yet you don't have any numbers to replace your variables and you still come to a conclusion? what is going on here? ALSO...it looks like you've already used this equation on the "average development" and on other "high end developments in the area" lol do you mind posting an excel spreadsheet with your findings professor?!?!

Let me tell you something "cladding cost:building cost" has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with anything

 

[ahmad.m.atiya]

Still ridiculous. Your statement is the equivalent of seeing a half-finished rolls royce on the assembly line and stating as fact that a potentially gorgeous vehicle was already ruined by the addition of 15" hubcaps which you had neither yet seen or had knowledge of.

Can you answer the questions I asked above in post #2823? If not, then you have no business making any sweeping proclamations on the finished product. All you have to go on are a few pieces of cladding from a couple sides of the building, a lot of guessing, and understandably low expectations.

I cannot answer your question, but I certainly do hope that it will be clad in something other than the mediocre cladding currently being used here.

Also, if I were to ever witness a half-built rolls royce still on the assembly line get dressed in 15" hubcaps, I would be one of the first people to conclude that such a decision is shameful.

LOL you made up a ratio to judge the building yet you don't have any numbers to replace your variables and you still come to a conclusion? what is going on here? ALSO...it looks like you've already used this equation on the "average development" and on other "high end developments in the area" lol do you mind posting an excel spreadsheet with your findings professor?!?!

Let me tell you something "cladding cost:building cost" has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with anything

Sorry to disappoint, but I coined that ratio based on logic, not actual numbers.

I'll give you an example though:

A) A $500 million dollar development with $10 million dollar cladding = 10:500 = 1:50 ratio for cladding cost:building cost
B) A $400 million dollar development with $40 million dollar cladding = 40:400 = 1:10 ratio

* note that this can only be used for buildings that cost roughly the same (i.e. a $50 thousand house with $50 thousand cladding will be 1:1, but it would still not be comparable to buildings that cost 10000 times more, though it would still have nice cladding for similarly priced houses).

From this ratio, I can say that building "B" would appear nicer than building "A" though the core structure might actually be less fancy.

 

[hawc]

Libeskind would NEVER change his building's cladding to save money and thereby compromise its design.

Oh wait...

 

[steveve]

luckily the ROM actually turned out ok ^ funny, i remember reading in an article many years ago that the design libeskind was going for allowed pedestrians to look inside the building at the exhibits... with the final result, you can't see a damn thing!

 

[hawc]

Truth be told I actually love the way the ROM turned out, but his original version would have been great too.

The problem with the ROM Crystal is the inside. The display space for the dinosaurs is horrendous, it's like they took their coolest exhibit and moved it into the hallway. In the old ROM you used to walk from room to room and see these awesome dinosaurs. Now they're all just crammed together under some low sloping ceilings. The inside of the crystal feels like I'm walking around an attic. Outside though is cool.

 

[Xray_Crystal_Junkie]

The cladding was changed because it was realized that the constant sunlight would be damaging to many exhibits. Not a cheapening® per se.

 

[vatche]

I don't think the rom looks that bad frankly.....that ugly fence has to go and some nice flowers and trees in front would spruce it up even more.

 

[Redroom Studios]

Libeskind would NEVER change his building's cladding to save money and thereby compromise its design.

Oh wait...

To be accurate, I dont think that the lead architect is in charge of making such decisions is he?

I know that to some degree it is a bit early to be commenting on L Tower's cladding but I'd have to put myself on the side of saying that so far it looks disappointing. I'll reserve my right to change opinions later and infact I'll be glad to be proven wrong here...

 

[Dan416]

The ROM looks great in that picture!

 

[gristle]

And the "ugly fence" is gone.