b13
New Member
well i saw the building a few weeks ago and the glass looked really good its too bad the building wasnt taller or something other than a box
|
|
|
well i saw the building a few weeks ago and the glass looked really good its too bad the building wasnt taller or something other than a box
DaninToronto
Active Member
Glass looks good to me especially on a clear day. Will this project win any awards? No. Just nice to see the stump gone and some new office space on the market.
Peepers
Banned
The problem with this building is not the quality of its glass ...what it suffers from is a lack of imagination on the part of Architect. Its as if the Architect set out to design a tower that would have the LEAST impact on the skyline. As a featureless building clad in highly reflective glass it is designed to almost disappear into the skyline under most daytime lighting conditions. To further insure that it does not get noticed the building is a dwarf compared to its nearest neighbors. I hope this mistake does not get compounded by building a nearly identical (but even shorter) tower to the east. Brookfield needs to go back to the drawing board for the second phase and come up with a bold TALLER tower.
Peepers, (welcome to the Forum) quite a number of us agree with you regarding the bland architecture. Regarding the height of the building, well, that's a little more complicated. If you have time I would encourage you to go back through this thread where you can read about the history of this project, and you'll get the bigger picture of the restrictions regarding height that the builder is dealing with, namely the City, market forces, etc.
42
42
Peepers
Banned
Interchange42 thankyou for your welcome. Regarding height I do understand that the developer must work within the constraints imposed by the city and by the market place however the previous design for this site (version 3) envisioned a 62 storey mixed use tower that was comparable in height to the original 57 story tower (version 1) that was APPROVED by the city. In terms of office space the previous version was also comparable to the current design (the addition of condos giving it needed height). It was a bold design that would have made an impact on the skyline. My issue however is not so much with height (although taller would have been better) but with the complete lack of imagination that went into this design.
khris
Senior Member
I'd love to see these previous designs.
The evolution of the designs can be seen in the first post in this thread.
42
42
marcus_a_j
Senior Member
^ keep going back in the thread (don't know how far back) There are 3 previous. One being PoMo, another kinda similar to Aura and a third variation
khris
Senior Member
Ah yes, those. Thanks
Have there been any renders of the LED lighting that was going to be used? I don't think I've ever seen those.
DaninToronto
Active Member
Brookfield has a certain amount of density on the site they are allowed, and having the extra towers means they have to go shorter. No surprise, but given how long they held onto this property (No parking income), I figured they probably wouldn't spent a lot of money on those little extras.
Dan416
Senior Member
Old Post but QFT. Love it.
Filip
Senior Member
LMAO!!!!
That is so true.
That is so true.
current
Active Member
August 27
khris
Senior Member
Is that the original facade or a replica? Regarding the parts and the design.
grey
Senior Member
It's the original, but they're inserting extra brick or concrete in strategic areas to make the windows line up with the actual windows/floors of the tower.