Toronto 88 Scott Street | 203.9m | 58s | Concert | P + S / IBI

JayBee said:
I like it too. But it depends on the glass and materials used. The finished product could either look great or ugly.
Click to expand...

That's exactly why I was careful to state "I like the building as shown..."
 
I think the October 18 DRP minutes is illuminating in this debate:

http://www.toronto.ca/planning/pdf/design_review/drp_meeting_minutes_18oct11.pdf (p. 6)

Building Form and Articulation
Members were generally comfortable with the tower design, but did feel that it would benefit from a simpler, contemporary expression. Members were interested by the concept of relating various levels of the tower to neighbouring towers, however they felt that this neighbouring context would be likely to change over time. Subsequently, Panel was unconvinced by this concept, and encouraged the proponent to focus on making a grand and contemporary design that is unique to the subject building.
Click to expand...

I think the general agreement is that the concept of a tapering tower that steps is a good one - but the detailing/rationale for the stepping isn't for the concrete reason mentioned.

AoD
 
Last edited:
Ramako said:
I'm generally an aA fan and despite being a little fatigued by the conventionalism of some of their more recent designs, I ultimately feel safer entrusting them, more than almost any other high-volume local firm, with high-profile sites. They likely won't give you anything spectacular or ground breaking, but you can count on them to produce some very high quality infill.

That being said, I also really appreciate the variety of forms, styles, materials and textures that are the hallmark of North American skylines and cityscapes. While 88 Scott isn't the best example of faux-historic architecture (if One St. Thomas were a 10, Uptown were a 4 and NY Towers were a 1, I'd probably give 88 Scott anywhere between a 5 and an 8, depending on how it is executed), I appreciate that it brings an under-represented style to the city. We've been inundated with so much of the same style during this boom, that I'd go so far as to call 88 Scott "fresh", which is ironic given that in any other circumstance, that would be the last adjective I'd use to describe a historicist design.

In summation, I can support this design as an abstract concept but what will really make it or break it for me, as was the case with Uptown and Trump, is the execution, attention to detail and quality of materials.
Click to expand...

Perfect. This needs to be quoted on this page.
 
Hipster Duck said:
Okay, I'll bite. I'll explain why I'm reasonably partial to this design without using the word "aA" or "box" once.

6355697465_f73d239de3_o.jpg
Click to expand...

Without quoting the points you make back to you, thanks for your contribution! It's nice to see someone making the effort to address the actual design of the building rather than droning on about "yet another derivative minimalist box..." in response to Parkdalian's perfectly sensible observation.
 
I don't mind the asymmetrical placings of the sky-lobby boxes (or whatever they are) on an otherwise symmetrical design. I think the randomness works and breaks up the formality of the shape of this building. This could work, although I will not be surprised if the choice of (cheaper) materials brings it down a notch or two.
 
alklay said:
I don't mind the asymmetrical placings of the sky-lobby boxes (or whatever they are) on an otherwise symmetrical design. I think the randomness works and breaks up the formality of the shape of this building. This could work, although I will not be surprised if the choice of (cheaper) materials brings it down a notch or two.
Click to expand...

Is there a particular reason to think Concert will go cheap on materials or is this a general distrust of developers? I have some direct but limited (two buildings) knowledge of Concert's work and haven't seen anything that would make me think they would go cheap.
 
67Cup said:
Is there a particular reason to think Concert will go cheap on materials or is this a general distrust of developers? I have some direct but limited (two buildings) knowledge of Concert's work and haven't seen anything that would make me think they would go cheap.
Click to expand...

Hey, 67Cup welcome to the forum:)
We have seen through-out the years so many promising renders that when done, look like a shit show....in other words, we here at UT are never sure of the developers final product (The Cheapening)...which then again, might not be the case with 88 Scott
 
Last edited:
67Cup said:
Is there a particular reason to think Concert will go cheap on materials or is this a general distrust of developers? I have some direct but limited (two buildings) knowledge of Concert's work and haven't seen anything that would make me think they would go cheap.
Click to expand...

I see Concert really being no different than other developers insofar as the renderings tend to be idealized and developers will tend to overlook details in the name of saving money.
 
I like the way it looks ..... the random boxes have yet to grow on me, but I'll give it some time ...
 
HelloToday said:
I like the way it looks ..... the random boxes have yet to grow on me, but I'll give it some time ...
Click to expand...

I think this tower looks great. The designer has made a terrific attempt to come up with something new and fresh and as for the "boxes" I think they offer an interesting addition to an otherwise bland wall of glass. I remember years ago travelling through Calgary seeing the Bankers Hall for the first time. I really liked the "monocle" on the building as it made it unique and interesting. The boxes will have a similar effect on 88. I also appreciate the numerous setbacks as the building progresses upward. Overall this will be a wonderful addition to the skyline.
 
From this angle, the skyline will have this project, 1 King West, Commerce Court North, and the Brookfield Place towers all tapering up at the top, which is different from the "boxy tops" you see from the west.
 
Having setbacks start a little lower and increasing the height to make up for lost space would be much better IMO.
 
Honestly I really like the look of the tower, but it's monstruous and inappropriate for the location.

The City should be pushing for this type of development to occur over current parking lots.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top