Toronto Concord Sky | 299m | 85s | Concord Adex | Kohn Pedersen Fox

although I agree with u ADRM but this is not any highrise. this is almost a supertall- will be visible from all the corners of Toronto. It's not better than the last design but I like it and cant wait for the project to start construction soon.
and im confused, is that heritage designation thing going to postponed the construction starting time?
 
cd concept said:
So what's Toronto Skyline supposed to only look like cheap, practical and bland looking! Don't draw something that going to bring our expectations up so high.
Click to expand...
No doubt that the older design was better,
i mentioned not realistic because of the height (350m) which this city. is not ready to approve, im not even sure they are ready for 329m structures
 
Automation Gallery said:
No doubt that the older design was better,
i mentioned not realistic because of the height (350m) which this city. is not ready to approve, im not even sure they are ready for 329m structures
Click to expand...
I thought you were talking about the looks not the height of this building. A Slimmer taller building would be more appropriate and this area. Givin that all the future buildings around it are almost super tall. And this building already scratches the super-tall status height being more wider then the previous rendering.
 
I don't understand why everyone on this thread is boosting the original design so hard. We get it - it's tall and thin. Is that the pinnacle of architecture??? What else is interesting about the original design? Yes - it has a nice crown. But let's not pretend the first design was incredible. The second design is just as good IMO.
 
thefreak said:
I don't understand why everyone on this thread is boosting the original design so hard. We get it - it's tall and thin. Is that the pinnacle of architecture??? What else is interesting about the original design? Yes - it has a nice crown. But let's not pretend the first design was incredible. The second design is just as good IMO.
Click to expand...
Nobody has claimed the original was the apex of architectural design, but it was very nice, and a hell of a lot better than the revision.
 
Strange Advance said:
Nobody has claimed the original was the apex of architectural design, but it was very nice, and a hell of a lot better than the revision.
Click to expand...
Ya my point is that the original design inst amazing and has been overhyped. After reading every post on this thread, the consensus is that it is nice because it is tall and thin. That's not good enough. The shape of the new design is far more interesting to me. Reading UT sometimes you think the overarching opinion of its users is "we want tall buildings because they are cool". And ya they are cool but the anger about the redesign on YSL is just soooo overblown. Get over it. The designs are both nice.
 
The previous design had far more grace to it. Pinched 2/5ths of the way up (and featuring a restaurant and projecting terrace) on the south side, and then flaring at the top, adds up to far more interest for me… and no amount of "get over it"s will dissuade me from what my eyes tell me. The new design is too slab-like at the bottom to have much appeal for me. The new massing is a result of Cresford being able to argue for a certain density and the City being able to argue against shadowing of Allen Gardens, and the resulting aesthetic is a disappointment to me and others. Big deal if some of us don't agree with you: you should get over that.

42
 
no doubt that the first design was a show stealer, this new design is not bad either I mean its way better than a lot of crap going up in T. will definitely have a lot of dominance in the skyline with its slab-like design and with Cresford the quality wont be bad.
 
image.jpg
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top