Toronto 191 Bay | 301.74m | 64s | QuadReal | Hariri Pontarini

I think it's a questionable metric because of the difference between a "building" vs "structure" is habitable floors. So if the CN Tower doesn't count as a building because it's essentially one big spire, why should a spire with no structural contribution and no habitable space add to a building's height?
 
holographic plastic said:
You can call it “gimmicks” or ”architectural backflips” all you want to try and discredit the design, but where do you draw the line? Is the wavy design of One Bloor a gimmick? Is the geometric façade of One Delisle a gimmick? Is the balcony design of Harbour Plaza Residences a gimmick? If so, then I’m fine with gimmicks. At least they give buildings some character and style, as opposed to this, let’s be honest here, basic glass box that we’ve seen time and time again.

16 York is a good example of a rather bland design with good materials. Doesn’t change the fact that the design is basic, which I feel is something we already have enough of in this city. End of story.
Click to expand...

The line between 'feature' and 'gimmick' is a fine one, to be sure. I'd draw the distinction at the question of whether without that 'thing', would the underlying building still be acceptable? In the case of both One Bloor and Harbour Plaza, I'd say yes. The buildings are well-detailed and the materiality is of sufficient quality to make them stand on their own.

The issue I'm taking is that you seem to require 'something' - an undefined, intangible 'star quality' in the design of this building when fundamentally, I think the pared down simplicity demonstrated in the redesign is far more desirable than trying and missing for something that won't happen.

Take it back to the NYTB, for example. Two blocks north is Arquitectonica's unfortunate Westin Hotel on 42nd. It's all bombast and empty hoopla, but since it's backflipping right out of the room, is it better than the Grey Lady to the south?
 
someMidTowner said:
I think it's a questionable metric because of the difference between a "building" vs "structure" is habitable floors. So if the CN Tower doesn't count as a building because it's essentially one big spire, why should a spire with no structural contribution and no habitable space add to a building's height?
Click to expand...
Are you saying 1 WTC is not the tallest building in North America? Is Burj Khalifa not the tallest building in the world (I believe the Shanghai Tower is taller to the roof)? Everyone else counts spires towards building height, so I don't understand why we shouldn't.
 
NeilV said:
Are you saying 1 WTC is not the tallest building in North America? Is Burj Khalifa not the tallest building in the world (I believe the Shanghai Tower is taller to the roof)? Everyone else counts spires towards building height, so I don't understand why we shouldn't.
Click to expand...
Not saying spires don't count. I'm saying that I'm of the opinion they shouldn't count unless observation towers with some habitable floors are also included. The rule on what makes a building versus a structure relies on habitable floors, yet that seems to be arbitrarily thrown out the window when adding towers without habitable floors to the top of buildings. If a 50-metre spire was suddenly added to Scotia Plaza decades after it was built, it would be called Canada's tallest by most, but wouldn't that feel a bit cheap to you?
 
I sent an email to HPA last evening, wasn't expecting a reply but they replied few minutes ago. In the email I wrote about how I'm a big fan of HPA's work and I think they are "the best architecture firm in Toronto" but I wasn't expecting such a boring design from HPA and I think they can do better for country's tallest building. they thanked me for thinking so "highly" of them and said this is not the final design, it's just to get the plan and density approved, the final design will be "far more interesting". now I don't know what they mean by interesting, will it get worse or get better? I guess we have to wait.
 
ProjectEnd said:
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.
Click to expand...

We don't need to be like NYC to have bold architecture. We managed to do it in the 70s with all those impressive bank towers clad in marble and granite, and those International Style classics like TD Centre. Even for buildings that I don't particularly love (like RBC tower), or the numerous small buildings throughout the financial district that are only a few storeys tall, there was still an attempt to do something different and unique from everyone else.

Needless to say, those days are gone. Somehow we went from that, to every new office building being little more than a simple box clad entirely in blue glass. Occasionally you might get a couple of curves or angles instead of just a box, but they still use the same damn blue glass. Including the terrible recladding projects like 130 Adelaide.

What happened?
 
someMidTowner said:
Not saying spires don't count. I'm saying that I'm of the opinion they shouldn't count unless observation towers with some habitable floors are also included. The rule on what makes a building versus a structure relies on habitable floors, yet that seems to be arbitrarily thrown out the window when adding towers without habitable floors to the top of buildings. If a 50-metre spire was suddenly added to Scotia Plaza decades after it was built, it would be called Canada's tallest by most, but wouldn't that feel a bit cheap to you?
Click to expand...

I understand your point, and I somewhat agree, but the problem is that it's often not clear where you draw the line. Sure, the spire on CC3 is clearly tacky, but what about something like Burj Khalifa which has several layers of "spire" stretching over 200m from the top floor and form an integral part of the structure. Which of those count towards the height and which don't? Do you only count habitable floor height, in which case the CN tower is only a few meters high? And if so, why is this building 300m, when only an uninhabitable sheet of glass reaches to 300m? Also, is "habitable" even a well-defined term?

There will always be gray areas when you try to define things like this, which is why I think the only objective way to measure is to the tip of the structure, whether it be roof, crown, spire, or even antenna.

In any case, the official CTBUH height of this building will be 374m.
 
guys a completely off topic question, any idea how much does it cost to hire an architecture firm like HPA for a project?
 
I like the new version quite a bit. To my eye it screams elegance and stateliness. However, I wouldn't object to something more abstract like the 80 storey concept a few pages back being built, but the current concept is still miles ahead of the last concept, in my view.
 
salsa said:
We don't need to be like NYC to have bold architecture. We managed to do it in the 70s with all those impressive bank towers clad in marble and granite, and those International Style classics like TD Centre. Even for buildings that I don't particularly love (like RBC tower), or the numerous small buildings throughout the financial district that are only a few storeys tall, there was still an attempt to do something different and unique from everyone else.

Needless to say, those days are gone. Somehow we went from that, to every new office building being little more than a simple box clad entirely in blue glass. Occasionally you might get a couple of curves or angles instead of just a box, but they still use the same damn blue glass. Including the terrible recladding projects like 130 Adelaide.

What happened?
Click to expand...

Your assumption seems to be less that we 'don't need to be NYC to have bold architecture' and more that the office buildings we're getting now aren't up to snuff. That's painting with an unfairly broad brush because for all the Bay Adelaide Centres and Water Park Place IIIs, we've got any number of The Wells, The HUBs, 379 Adelaides, QRC Wests, Bay Park Centres, etc. etc.

I wasn't saying that NYC is uniformly better, just that when they do go above and beyond - a la NYT Tower - they're able to do so in a much more extravagant way since the rents justify the cost of building.
 
AlvinofDiaspar said:
In case one isn't aware of the detailing of Piano's NYT - here is a good example of how one aspect - the facade - was handled:

New York Times Building | Shildan Group

Custom glazed ALPHATUBE sunscreens give the New York Times Renzo Piano Building Workshop & FXFOWLE an industrial but timeless look.
www.shildan.com www.shildan.com
AoD
Click to expand...

You sold me.

With a caveat: I wish they would narrow the tower a bit more or nudge it east directly on top of the limestone building so that it doesn’t sit so crowded in the square covering Commerce Court North. This really should have been built on Yonge anyway.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top