ChesterCopperpot
Senior Member
I'm in camp 1.5
Toronto 191 Bay | 301.74m | 64s | QuadReal | Hariri Pontarini
- Thread starter Automation Gallery
- Start date
someMidTowner
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
I am too, though leaning towards 1. So let's say 1.22 for me.
ChesterCopperpot
Senior Member
The docs are online now - http://app.toronto.ca/DevelopmentAp...4298900&isCofASearch=false&isTlabSearch=false
Adamson are Architect of Record - working with HPA
holographic plastic
Active Member
Missing a 4th one: The “I dislike this because it looks like anything else being built in Toronto, and it has no special characteristics or design elements, especially compared to the earlier version” crowd.
someMidTowner
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
No, that's camp 3.
holographic plastic
Active Member
Oh darn, you got me. Wanting more interesting architecture, and wishing Toronto was more like Dubai are in fact the same! How could I not have realized?
Lenser
Senior Member
Dubai is kind of impressive. Like Kitsch Wonderland.
innsertnamehere
Superstar
This is pretty clearly taller than 299.447m or whatever it is. If you look at the plans it shows the point that height is being measured from to be well above street grade. Looks like there is about another 1.5m on top.
The point it is measured from is the interior grade from the plaza - but I'm sure the actual zoning height will result in a 300-301m height as you have to average grades around the entire site, not just take the tallest one. Plus I'd argue that the grade facing a public street is more important anyway.
The point it is measured from is the interior grade from the plaza - but I'm sure the actual zoning height will result in a 300-301m height as you have to average grades around the entire site, not just take the tallest one. Plus I'd argue that the grade facing a public street is more important anyway.
WislaHD
Superstar
I guess since everyone else is placing their 2 cents on the table, I will too.
I like the changes. The new version is a more attractive building, and refined. The original version in retrospect was very bulky and overbearing. I like the effect that the sky lobby on the 34 storey has on the building, creates a sense of wonder of what is there while looking up, and breaks apart the tower nicely. I just wish that the corners of version 2.0 didn't look like balcony space.
I like the changes. The new version is a more attractive building, and refined. The original version in retrospect was very bulky and overbearing. I like the effect that the sky lobby on the 34 storey has on the building, creates a sense of wonder of what is there while looking up, and breaks apart the tower nicely. I just wish that the corners of version 2.0 didn't look like balcony space.
innsertnamehere
Superstar
Yup thought I would illustrate it a bit more though.
ChesterCopperpot
Senior Member
Looking at the plans - they are putting an automated parking stacker system in the first few floors of the reconstructed 18 Wellington building
The entrance to that is via Melinda Street - check out the elaborate drop off area on the second level.Looking at the plans - they are putting an automated parking stacker system in the first few floors of the reconstructed 18 Wellington building
There's also the standard underground parking as well, still accessed by Wellington, but that's not going to b large enough.
42
ProjectEnd
Superstar
Real trifecta of bad takes here my dude.
Not sure what those who are complaining that it looks 'like a condo tower' are on about? The differences in the two typologies lie primarily in materiality, not back-flippy gimmicks. Exactly the kind of detailing that you won't get in a preliminary rezoning set.
To that end, while I love this, it's just not going to be another NYT Tower. That sort of building is simply beyond the economics of Toronto real estate. It cost just under $850 million dollars nearly 15 years ago (over a $1 billion today). Likewise, lease rates in 2007, when the tower was completed, were between $50-80 psf. The most expensive new Class A space in Toronto is 141 Bay which is trading at $50 psf.
Unfortunately for fans of bold and expensive architecture, few cities can take on NYC since the economics of its buildings only work in a hand full of other cities.
Last edited:
smably
Senior Member
The point is that if you can't distinguish between this design and the average Toronto condo tower, maybe your architectural values tend toward the gaudy and flashy (i.e., Dubai) rather than restraint, simplicity, and good materials.