TonyV
Senior Member
Looking at it from Queen & Bay yesterday, I thought to myself, "the stump lives".
The important part of a building is the bottom three or four floors which are visible from the street. If the building above that is reflective and blends in with the sky it allows more light to the street and prevents cavernous dark streets. There is far too much emphasis on skyline development in my opinion. The view from a distance doesn't matter in comparison to actually being there. Eventually as high-rises spead out across the city we will have a skyline like Sao Paulo with no contour at all. What will matter is how a building looks from the street because nobody will see the top because of the building sitting in front of it.
Wow. Debate about the BA Centre design is still marching on, despite the fact that the building is so inoffensive and was designed to be such that it would never even generate a bit of debate or even attention. How ironic .
PS. As for proportions, I've had several friends ask me, "Wait, so that's Toronto's tallest."
Stop judging towers from miles away; that's not generally how architecture or citybuilding works.
With all due respect, you're essentially saying that any tall structure on this site doesn't deserve criticism since it's tall and balances out the skyline, and replaced the stump. You're right, it did do all those things, but it failed epically in all other aspects. It's tall, yes, well kind of, it has added to the skyline, yes... kind of, and it replaced the stump, yes, well sort of.
It's bland, and I still am amazed that someone was paid for designing this thing. Honestly, it looks like it was conceived in less than 10 minutes. Seriously, someone was PAID to 'design' this thing? Really? Reeeeeaallly?
is the path connection open yet?
is the path connection open yet?
Some of, if not all of those pictures were posted.
Some of, if not all of those pictures were posted.