Redroom Studios
Senior Member
I think you mean "subtle" and that is exactly what we dont want it to be. this one has got to be bold on the colour!
caltrane74
Senior Member
Standing Tall
ptbotrmpfn
Senior Member
I'm sorry I just personally thought like some that the claddings blue framing at first kinda looked cheap in some photos I have seen but I take it back.. It adds something special to the look of the glass and it's tinting. And, as i laugh out loud regarding " scuttle" Sorry for spelling mistakes. I will learn to spell check okay!
Redroom Studios
Senior Member
well, I dont know if we've seen enough cladding yet to judge what the completed building will look like. I should have chosen my words more carefully and said that I am hoping that the blue frames will make this building look very bold. You dont have to want the same result as me... personally I really liked the highly vibrant blue that was used on the test panels several months ago.
CITY_LOVER
Active Member
Hmmm, like others, while I know it's too early to judge the cladding on this one, I can't help myself stating that I really like the cladding on The Florian and wonder if this tower could have used something similar!? From the two sets of test panels we saw earlier, the 'other' one (the one on the right side of the pic a few pages back) looked better to me than the one they ended up going with. I don't really like clear-glass..it has a tendency to look cheap to me. I like the location, height and shape of this tower and I really hope the cladding is not poorly done (i.e. Torontoized).
Bruvyman
Active Member
What does that mean - Torontoized??? Are you stating that Toronto buildings use lower quality cladding than buildings in other cities? That's what it sounds like to me and if so, could you please provide some sort of evidence? Statements like those get really annoying and offensive if they are just thrown around without any basis in fact or reality.
Mike in TO
Senior Member
Clear glass can often be more expensive to produce than tinted glass due to some inherent embedded characteristics of glass panels - I am often frustrated by the word "cheap" so often being loosely tossed around to describe Toronto projects with no building science or actual construction knowledge to back up those claims.... Absolute bare minimum standards as regulated though the Ontario Building Code for construction in addition the CPG (Construction Performance Guidelines) by the Tarion Warranty Corporation are among the most stringent building performance/code standards in the world (top in Canada & only California has comparable energy standards for North American jurisdictions)...
If you don't like the aesthetic 'look' of something, that's fine - so why don't people say that and leave it at that, but the constant chorus that products are 'cheap' without any idea of actual costs is getting a bit silly. Expectations should also be held in check - L Tower had a high initial psf associated with it and is a signature project - so high expectations are warranted, but on the other hand, when mid range projects targeting middle class buyers don't have high end curtain wall cladding, there isn't a whole lot of justification to complain that exterior materials were not expensive enough.
Last edited:
CITY_LOVER
Active Member
^^^^ If you read the various posts in many threads, it's my own take on The Cheapening. It's not annoying really, it's just a matter of opinion. I'm pretty sure you know what I'm referring to here and there's no need to point to evidence Bruvyman! And why is it offensive? Don't take it so personally; you're not Toronto. 
gristle
Senior Member
This will need more glass. A few panels don't really offer up enough to make a solid impression (in my opinion).
CITY_LOVER
Active Member
^^^^ Mike in TO, I was not aware of the fact that clear glass can be more expensive to produce. As superficial as it may sound, often the clear glass make buildings seem light greyish overall, which can be somewhat dull and downbeat and that's why I'm not a fan of them. In terms of looks, I do like something like Shangri-La, Four Seasons, The Florian, etc. What's your take on the other set of the two test panels (that was not chosen)? Did you think that looked sharper than the one that is being put on right now? Just curious....
Bruvyman
Active Member
^^^^ If you read the various posts in many threads, it's my own take on The Cheapening. It's not annoying really, it's just a matter of opinion. I'm pretty sure you know what I'm referring to here and there's no need to point to evidence Bruvyman! And why is it offensive? Don't take it so personally; you're not Toronto.
I have a lot of civic pride and though i don't take it personally, it does offend me when others make baseless and disparaging statements about Toronto. Yes, developers are looking to maximize profits, and as a result, often will downgrade the quality of materials in order to achieve this. This is not an issue that is exclusive or predominant to Toronto, or at least I have never seen any evidence to suggest this is the case, which is why I would like to see some proof. So no, I don't know what you are referring to here.
I agree that we should want and expect the highest quality possible in our city's developments, but this isn't a democracy, its capitalism where dollars are king...Just like everywhere else (with the possible exception of Pyongyang)
Do we know that those panels were not chosen? I wonder if different sections or faces of the building may be clad differently and use both of the examples we saw.
AlvinofDiaspar
Moderator
City_lover:
Clear glass (more specifically low and ultra-low iron glass) is VERY expensive - glass have a natural greenish tint due to iron content. There aren't a huge number of examples where glass of this sort is used in Toronto (RCM entrance, Opera House and maybe the new Four Seasons hotel and the northern "box" at Shangri La).
AoD
Clear glass (more specifically low and ultra-low iron glass) is VERY expensive - glass have a natural greenish tint due to iron content. There aren't a huge number of examples where glass of this sort is used in Toronto (RCM entrance, Opera House and maybe the new Four Seasons hotel and the northern "box" at Shangri La).
AoD
Last edited:
dcc008
New Member
Mike in TO:
Thank you for nailing all of the thoughts I've had on this so-called "cheapening" or "torontoized" building of structures.
JUST because someone may not like the look of a building, the colour of a building (the colour of a material), the shape of a building, how the hell do you know that it's been "cheapened"?!?! It's absolutely absurd.
If one were to go to holt renfrew, I'm sure there are tons of different things one might think are ugly, but they certainly aren't cheap, and they certainly aren't made with "lower quality" materials.
If you look at the original renders, the colour of the building is a blueish colour with clear windows, you saw it all along, so how has the building been "cheapened"?
To everyone who liked the "right-test panel" a while back...it's clearly intended for use on the north facade of the building hence the angle it was installed on, so I could imagine a different mock-up, different glass/tint, and perhaps a different installation method as it is north facing and for most of the building, will be installed at an angle facing downwards.
All I know is that terms like "cheapening" and "torontized" cannot be found in the dictionary and are absolutely ridiculous terms since their definitions are based in unfounded and unknown ideas.
Thank you for nailing all of the thoughts I've had on this so-called "cheapening" or "torontoized" building of structures.
JUST because someone may not like the look of a building, the colour of a building (the colour of a material), the shape of a building, how the hell do you know that it's been "cheapened"?!?! It's absolutely absurd.
If one were to go to holt renfrew, I'm sure there are tons of different things one might think are ugly, but they certainly aren't cheap, and they certainly aren't made with "lower quality" materials.
If you look at the original renders, the colour of the building is a blueish colour with clear windows, you saw it all along, so how has the building been "cheapened"?
To everyone who liked the "right-test panel" a while back...it's clearly intended for use on the north facade of the building hence the angle it was installed on, so I could imagine a different mock-up, different glass/tint, and perhaps a different installation method as it is north facing and for most of the building, will be installed at an angle facing downwards.
All I know is that terms like "cheapening" and "torontized" cannot be found in the dictionary and are absolutely ridiculous terms since their definitions are based in unfounded and unknown ideas.
CITY_LOVER
Active Member
I also have civic pride and am interested in the developments that the city is seeing and hence my membership here on UT!
My comments are not baseless, as they reflect the fact that one too many buildings/developments in the city have come up with little regard to how they look, engage with the city, meet the street, etc. Examples include 10 Dundas East, Crystal Blu, Uptown, M5V, ROCP I & II, most buildings in Liberty Village, the fact that the old building on 81 Wellesley St. East was so easily demolished, etc. Yes, it's not an issue unique only to Toronto but if you combine these supposedly global cases of less-than-stellar examples with the condition of our transit, streets (massive potholes), sidewalks (always broken up, patchy, dirty), street lights and hydro poles, etc., it gives most of the areas in and around the downtown area a less than polished look. If you think about it, looking at Times Square and the Ginza district, 10 Dundas East looks horrible, even after taking into account the crass commercialism it is supposed to display. Why are so many of the buildings in our city ending up grey? This is why when I see something like clear glass on L tower, it got me upset (and now that I know clear glass is very expensive, it still doesn't make me feel better about the exterior look, however I appreciate builders going for something that's not the cheapest).
I'm not sure if the other panels (that I think look better) were chosen or not but I thought since they started the cladding with the 'clear' looking set (the one I don't like), that type was the final chosen one!?
It has been stated a number of times in this thread and in front page articles that both of those mocked-up window sections are being used, but on "different parts of the building". That's what Sam Crignano told us when we interviewed him last summer.
42
42