Toronto 2 Carlton | 251.1m | 73s | Northam | IBI Group

Lenser said:
I applaud the move to a single tower - the previous design was unnecessarily claustrophobic. Can't say I like much of anything else about this, however. The twin spires up top look ludicrous. The thing feels more like a temporary place-holder than an actual proposition.
Click to expand...

Yes. Let us hope this never sees light of day.

The spires look like the result of someone telling a 12-year-old to "make a tall building look cool."
 
I was already to rant when I saw the front page story, but it has all been said already (to this board's credit): this is a horrible pho-po-mo design of a tower. I am actually surprised at how bad this design is. Great height at a very prominent corner deserves soooo much more. I pray that we will see revision number 3 (or at least the Design Review Board sends them up to their room tonight, with no dinner, for a redesign).
 
alklay said:
I was already to rant when I saw the front page story, but it has all been said already (to this board's credit): this is a horrible pho-po-mo design of a tower. I am actually surprised at how bad this design is. Great height at a very prominent corner deserves soooo much more. I pray that we will see revision number 3 (or at least the Design Review Board sends them up to their room tonight, with no dinner, for a redesign).
Click to expand...

Agreed, I don’t like it either, but have no reason to comment further (aside from: ‘we could use a few spires... just not those spires’). As others have stated, this is still years away and the property and/or design will likely switch hands. I think we all expected the site to be consolidated into a single tower. The height is great and I like idea of creating a small open area on Carlton street, it’ll certainly ease up the congestion around the street car stop.
 
While I understand this is (hopefully) just a general massing model in service of a rezoning exercise, I find the aesthetic ineptitude of the spires almost comical. It's one of the laziest "design elements" I've seen in Toronto, as if the architects just randomly tacked them on as a way of justifying the 'design' fees charged to the client. (The rest of it is more garden-variety awful).
 
torplanner said:
I'm trying to remember a comparable project that was so (nearly) unanimously disliked on UT. :)
Click to expand...

You mean, the current version?

And remember: what it's replacing is a *huge* insult-to-injury part of it. It makes the scheme even more egregious than if it were to replace a parking lot. (But being at a strategic-pivot major intersection is insulting enough. Like, this is a Downtown North York-i-fication of Downtown Toronto. *That's* how bad it is.)
 
This could be the most ugly eye sore looking building on Yonge St that can not be hidden by another building when you look north or south on Yonge. It should make the number 1 spot for ugly building in the city. Even YC across the street put this one to shame.

Have no issue going with one building here, but not this crap. Even if you fill the gap in the first design with its flaws, it offer a better base to upgrade the design than the current one. Need to go back to square one and design a better looking building base on the current design.

The base is a real eye sore and hurt the eyes today.

I was was to chose between this current design and what there, I will go with what there and fix the podium.

A nice curb corner would work well here.
 
LOL, in 20 years, downtown Toronto will look like a typical Asian city (Chinese or Korean) with no characters when they keep building stuff like this, where density is the only thing to boast about and beauty is way at the bottom of the priority, which is still, ironically, better than the sad look right now, which is hardly more attractive than downtown Cleveland or Cincinnati.
 
View by Koops65 over at Skyscraperpage- this tower does improve the skyline in these parts- however, like most people are saying, the base needs to be redone and the overall design refined and made more sophisticated (there are buildings with this massing that carry it in a much better design).

Overall- I like the shape, but the detailing leaves much to be desired.

Some heritage reference (maybe retaining the patterning of the original base?) and reference to the Yonge Street streetscape might work in grounding this project as well.

B5qdmeS.png

More pictures in the link:
http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showpost.php?p=7978401&postcount=8424
 
Last edited:
I stand by my original position of preferring no redevelopment at all and maintaining the current building as is. But I digress, if this has to be inevitable.

First impression that came to mind for this latest rendition, is that it reminded me a lot of those three towers in Melbourne that were built in the 90's. Tbh, I actually don't mind those. But there's a time era and place for everything.

Overall, I do find this to look pretty bad. But I don't see this proposal in its current form being serious in terms of what to expect at the final stages.
 
Honestly I don't see how this proposal is in any way reasonable or could be taken seriously. The render looks fairly preliminary and the office space that makes up for the loss of this Modernist tower is minimal. I'd really prefer no development here, the existing building is perfectly fine, and could use a bit of heritage restoration if anything.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top