Toronto Pinnacle One Yonge | 345.5m | 105s | Pinnacle | Hariri Pontarini

AlvinofDiaspar said:
From WT - Archaeological Conservation and Management Strategy:

View attachment 297101


Zoom in CW1:

View attachment 297103


Description for CW1:

View attachment 297102


The map is definitely clear enough to show the foundation cribs are exactly where they are supposed to be.

AoD
Click to expand...
And if those maps are correct, as I certainly suspect they are, we'll be seeing more of this in Phase 3 of this project and Phase 2 of Sugar Wharf when they start digging, I gather.
 
E65E02E8-2BD2-4294-BD87-07A85394FF16.jpeg
BB62B8ED-1D78-423A-81A9-D7B8D88ED526.jpeg
 
Is there any chance the design of the Phase 3 tower changes by the time construction on that begins? It looks very similar to the Skytower design and I know it'll be a few years before phase 3 gets underway. Are the designs "locked in"? Any insight would be much appreciated!
 
There is plenty of window wall here, but thankfully the majority of it look like it will be hidden by the balcony glazing or the adjacent podiums of the next two phases.
The sections of curtain wall running up the sides do look nice though. And those fins... what 1 Yorkville could have been.
 
Contra said:
I love this optimism. 🙄
Click to expand...

Wouldn't it be nice if value-engineering worked the other way?

You know, not enough value for the $$?

Let's add more quality to the architecture or the landscape plan, because we're not spending enough?

****

Sadly, he's not wrong...........alterations late in the game rarely add quality, they usually subtract it.

There are rare exceptions for which we can be grateful.

But it not wrong to surmise that changes at a certain point are only likely to detract from a proposal.
 
Northern Light said:
Wouldn't it be nice if value-engineering worked the other way?

You know, not enough value for the $$?

Let's add more quality to the architecture or the landscape plan, because we're not spending enough?

****

Sadly, he's not wrong...........alterations late in the game rarely add quality, they usually subtract it.

There are rare exceptions for which we can be grateful.

But it not wrong to surmise that changes at a certain point are only likely to detract from a proposal.
Click to expand...
Frankly I'm just tired of all this down-beaten pessimism for literally any project that hasn't even broken ground. We're already pleasantly surprised by the quality so far. Seems like half the posts in here are just nay-sayers and Toronto-bashers. 🤷🏻‍♂️
 
Contra said:
Frankly I'm just tired of all this down-beaten pessimism for literally any project that hasn't even broken ground. We're already pleasantly surprised by the quality so far. Seems like half the posts in here are just nay-sayers and Toronto-bashers. 🤷🏻‍♂️
Click to expand...

I can understand that.

I repudiate straight-up Toronto bashing where I see it as unfair (for example bashing something that in fact compares favourably to other jurisdictions; or implying certain problems are unique to this City when they are not).

I think some measure of optimism is essential to making positive change. Its hard to lobby to make things better if you have a doom and gloom disposition that it won't make any difference.

****

At the same time, a healthy amount of cynicism is not unreasonable.

Many developers on multiple projects have failed to deliver at the level of the render (which sometimes isn't sufficiently ambitious either).

Value engineering is often to blame, where proponents argue they are adhering to the 'vision'; but trying to make something affordable.

I do understand why that aggravates people and why they are concerned that another such exercise make lurk around any given corner.

There is a pattern; and it is unfortunate.

****

Finding the balance between optimism and pessimism can be a challenge.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top