Toronto 320 Bay Modernization | ?m | 18s | Menkes | B+H

R

raptor

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
2,708
Reaction score
3,693
Partisans twitted the following link:
https://www.instagram.com/p/BoaFDOXgel2/

partisansarchitecture Introducing Slip Tower.
.
In 2016, PARTISANS was invited to design an office tower for a competition. The modernist-inspired high-rise cantilevers out to frame an Art Deco heritage gem, combining the best qualities of each style—simplicity, craftsmanship, functionality, flexibility, elegance.
.
Also wishing everyone a very happy #WorldArchitectureDay!
Click to expand...

upload_2018-10-2_8-56-41.png


It's unclear if Partisans were the winners of the design competition, hence the omission in the thread title. In any case, this wedge (304 Bay) is about to be redeveloped.

Apologies if a thread already exists for this lot.
 

Attachments

  • upload_2018-10-2_8-56-41.png
    upload_2018-10-2_8-56-41.png
    613.3 KB · Views: 3,714
That's a neat design, but it's a tad short in my opinion. I wonder who ended up winning the design competition. Either way, it will be quite cool to see yet another potential new office development in the core!
 
Interesting window type / size transition about a third of the way up. Quirky but I dig it.
 
I love it -- Toronto really seems to be leading the way in terms of projects that build over and around heritage structures.
 
IMHO, This avant garde density grab is not how you treat a building like the Permanent Trust Building. Chop off the overhang over the Permanent Trust and then you have something.
 
ericmacm said:
That's a neat design, but it's a tad short in my opinion. I wonder who ended up winning the design competition. Either way, it will be quite cool to see yet another potential new office development in the core!
Click to expand...

If the render is accurate, the building would be around 140m tall. That does appear rather short for the location. On the other hand, given the quite restricted lot size, it's not bad.

I wonder why the choice was made to have a large portion of the floor space hang over 304 Bay, instead of simply staying within the lot and being taller (maybe 210m if it kept the same total floor space). The benefits of a larger floor plate on the higher floors must outweigh the extra costs of building to this design.
 
This may not even be a real project - given the extreme constraints, I wouldn't be surprised if it was deemed unfeasible.

As for the overhang, I presume it is to create more usable floor plates. This would be way too small of a floorplate for office uses otherwise.
 
Wow we're finally seeing some of the older and shorter buildings being intensified. Hopefully it's the start of a trend especially with, for what I hope, the DRL being worked out.
 
The existing saw-toothed building is relatively new. I remember it being built in the 90s (I think it was for Barclays Bank), and even then I was impressed at how they managed to squeeze a tallish building into such a tight spot.
 
I agree but, A 210 metre plus tower wedged on the 304 Bay site would be
am29 said:
Wow we're finally seeing some of the older and shorter buildings being intensified. Hopefully it's the start of a trend especially with, for what I hope, the DRL being worked out.
Click to expand...

This has been going on for a while now. I'm repeating myself but, it's not a trend I find desirable on a large scale or necessary if New York can manage to preserve unaltered low rises next to sleek super talls.
 
If 304 Bay Street consists of the two old towers and the glass part in the middle. They might just dismantle the old structures and build a huge tower on top then reassemble the old buildings as a podium.
 
Heritage designations notwithstanding and 302 Bay being owned by BMO last I heard, what possible good would come from that to even suggest it?

Facepalm
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top