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

ProjectEnd said:
Real trifecta of bad takes here my dude.

Not sure what those who are complaining that it looks 'like a condo tower' are on about? The differences in the two typologies lie primarily in materiality, not back-flippy gimmicks. Exactly the kind of detailing that you won't get in a preliminary rezoning set.
Click to expand...

It doesn’t matter how well the materials look, or how nicely detailed it is, it’s still a boring design that takes no risks and that makes no effort in looking anywhere near as interesting as the previous one.

These two buildings come to mind right away, and I’m sure there’s more that look extremely similar to this design that I don’t know off the top of my head. Not that I dislike these buildings, but isn’t the general thought on this website that we should be moving away from these rather basic rectangular boxes?
176666
176667
 
ProjectEnd said:
It cost just under $850 million dollars nearly 15 years ago (over a $1 billion today). Likewise, lease rates in 2007, when the tower was completed, were between $50-80 psf. The most expensive new Class A space in Toronto is 141 Bay which is trading at $50 psf.
Click to expand...

would it cost over a $billion to build commerce court 3.
 
Last edited:
What an utterly anonymous snoozefest. Fingers crossed this is just for the rezoning exercise.
 
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...

Even NYC has stopped that - just look at their recent crop of office towers. Probably better detailing than what we offer, but architecturally bold they ain't.

AoD
 
This tower would be a good proposal if this was the first iteration of the design, and we hadn't seen the previous iteration. It's definitely got that "clean and basic" look about it that you would expect from a city that is not as economically important and trying to make a big, reasonably cheap building. While it looks like the New York Times building, it feels very similar in vein to Stantec Tower in Edmonton, with a very clean, vanilla design designed to be a presence.

For a city that is currently in the middle of an office boom with some fantastic tower designs, such as 160 Front, The HUB, and CIBC Square, this is very basic in comparison. Toronto should be striving for much bolder designs for office buildings these days, which is what the original design for CC3 appeared to be conveying.
 
someMidTowner said:
I'm noticing three clear camps emerging:
  1. The "why can't we be Dubai?" crowd
Click to expand...

we don't want golden glass or the disco lighting scheme buildings have in Dubai, we just want it to be more interesting because Toronto will get its tallest building after 50 years and we don't want it to be another FCP or Bay Adelaide centre. anything similar to International commerce centre or China world trade centre would be amazing does that still look like Dubai to u?

International commerce centre
176671


China World Trade Centre
176672
 
ushahid said:
we don't want golden glass or the disco lighting scheme buildings have in Dubai, we just want it to be more interesting because Toronto will get its tallest building after 50 years and we don't want it to be another FCP or Bay Adelaide centre. anything similar to International commerce centre or China world trade centre would be amazing does that still look like Dubai to u?

International commerce centre
View attachment 176671

China World Trade Centre
View attachment 176672
Click to expand...
The original CC3 plan seemed gimmicky to me. Neither of your examples seem gimmicky to me. Saying that this design is another Bay Adelaide Centre is like saying that massing is the only design element you can see when you look at a rendering. Beauty is in the details.
And this is only Toronto's tallest if you count spires, in which case I'm 7ft3 with an Abe Lincoln hat.
 
holographic plastic said:
It doesn’t matter how well the materials look, or how nicely detailed it is, it’s still a boring design that takes no risks and that makes no effort in looking anywhere near as interesting as the previous one.

These two buildings come to mind right away, and I’m sure there’s more that look extremely similar to this design that I don’t know off the top of my head. Not that I dislike these buildings, but isn’t the general thought on this website that we should be moving away from these rather basic rectangular boxes?
Click to expand...

But it does matter. Far more than the trite architectural backflips for which you're pining. The NYT Building is pretty much the epitome of that - a building that has a simple ("boring" to you) form, but is so precisely detailed that it ended up costing an arm and a leg to build. When you stand next to it though, you can pretty clearly see where all that money went.

ushahid said:
would it cost over a $billion to build commerce court 3.
Click to expand...

No. At +/-350/ft blended over 1.8m sf, you're at just over half that.
 
ProjectEnd said:
But it does matter. Far more than the trite architectural backflips for which you're pining. The NYT Building is pretty much the epitome of that - a building that has a simple ("boring" to you) form, but is so precisely detailed that it ended up costing an arm and a leg to build. When you stand next to it though, you can pretty clearly see where all that money went.
Click to expand...

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

Do you see any Class A office building in city doing that right now?

As an aside, if anyone think for one second our navel-gazing on UT is bad, you should check the discussion about the building above here: http://wirednewyork.com/forum/archive/index.php/t-3379-p-10.html

AoD
 
Last edited:
someMidTowner said:
The original CC3 plan seemed gimmicky to me. Neither of your examples seem gimmicky to me. Saying that this design is another Bay Adelaide Centre is like saying that massing is the only design element you can see when you look at a rendering. Beauty is in the details.
And this is only Toronto's tallest if you count spires, in which case I'm 7ft3 with an Abe Lincoln hat.
Click to expand...

I agree with your view on spires, but 'official' skyscraper organisations like CTBUH list the NYT building as 318.8 m when its roof height is only 228 m.
 
ProjectEnd said:
But it does matter. Far more than the trite architectural backflips for which you're pining. The NYT Building is pretty much the epitome of that - a building that has a simple ("boring" to you) form, but is so precisely detailed that it ended up costing an arm and a leg to build. When you stand next to it though, you can pretty clearly see where all that money went.



No. At +/-350/ft blended over 1.8m sf, you're at just over half that.
Click to expand...

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.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top