Toronto 212 King Street West | 250m | 80s | Dream Office | SHoP

C-mac said:
Personally I think it's ridiculous. For starters, with all the green and blue glass buildings in Toronto, anything other than that is a bonus. Second, why do they care how tall it is??? If they can get the tenants, who cares?? Another supertall in the city will just ad to our great skyline.
Click to expand...
those were the two parts I disagree with. Though the design is very streamlined and simple it definitely not boring but I get that that's subjective, and apparently, only half the panel thought it was boring so. And also I kinda get the idea that it's this tall for no particular reason but I think the height adds to the design. They have full right to care about the height though, their job is to make sure it fits in with the rest of the skyline and the height is a big component of that.
 
KhalilHeron said:
those were the two parts I disagree with. Though the design is very streamlined and simple it definitely not boring but I get that that's subjective, and apparently, only half the panel thought it was boring so. And also I kinda get the idea that it's this tall for no particular reason but I think the height adds to the design. They have full right to care about the height though, their job is to make sure it fits in with the rest of the skyline and the height is a big component of that.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but my point is why wouldn't it fit in with our skyline?
 
allengeorge said:
I definitely didn’t agree with the height concerns of the DRP.
Click to expand...
The height concerns dont make a lot of sense, M + G is going up right next door. Thankfully this developer knows that and so hopefully they dont budge too much on height unless LPAT forces them to
 
Yeah - here's hoping that the developer completely ignores that comment. As for the other comments, I...honestly don't know enough about the site/architecture to figure out if they're valuable or not.
 
if they use contrast of black and bronze and twist the helix on the facade a little more. and thin down the office part somehow, im happy.


EDIT: thats what i meant by contrast. like a fade from black to bronze. start with black(Office) and as the tower rises it fades in to bronze(Residential).
1621520989510.png

Black orange gradient linear #000000 #ff4500 wallpaper 4K HD

Black orange gradient linear #000000 #ff4500 wallpaper 4K HD
www.xmple.com www.xmple.com
 
Last edited:
One item I really liked from the DRP is the suggestion to maintain the heritage building facades into the lobby. I originally thought the lobby render was striking but now think it would be even better if the east/west heritage buildings could maintain their existing structures inside the lobby...similar to Queen Richmond Centre. This was a good suggestion and one I hope they consider.

212 Lobby:

45153-133783.jpeg


Queen Richmond Lobby:

4294-11308.jpg
 
ushahid said:
if they use contrast of black and bronze and twist the helix on the facade a little more. and thin down the office part somehow, im happy.
Click to expand...
I agree if the building's gonna be so all I think it needs a little bit more personality. Also yea the office portion needs to be slimmer, or have the same finish as the rest of the tower or something. It's just not working for me
irishboy said:
One item I really liked from the DRP is the suggestion to maintain the heritage building facades into the lobby. I originally thought the lobby render was striking but now think it would be even better if the east/west heritage buildings could maintain their existing structures inside the lobby...similar to Queen Richmond Centre. This was a good suggestion and one I hope they consider.

212 Lobby:

View attachment 321189

Queen Richmond Lobby:

View attachment 321190
Click to expand...
It would take the lobby to the next level. I already find it stunning but keeping the historical facades would elevate it that much more.
 
Instead of a POPS, one thing the developers could do to "give back more than what it takes" would be to include public toilets with 24h access in the atrium. DRP should be pushing accessible public toilets, which would benefit the city's liveability so much more than some crappy, corporate blandscape architecture with anti-homeless street furniture.
 
But why should we build a tower that is mostly covered in grey glass? Wouldn't it be better if we returned to more solid materials? This design already includes terra cotta panels, but they don't cover most of the façade.
 
ProjectEnd said:
They cover around half. That's more than enough, especially given what molded terra cotta costs.
Click to expand...
Is it enough aesthetically? Because the tower is very grey... and I can't fathom how someone may find that attractive. Or is enough due to costs?
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top