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

I liked it before... it had a very dignified crown. Now I find it to be so awkwardly resolved that I have no interest in it. Blech.
 
So I may be a philistine, but I think there is a lot to be said for the redesign. In the original, the aggressively centred glass portion was at odds with the north-to-south rise of the clad east side -- it was like a piece of print design where the main heading is centred but the rest of the page has all its elements left justified. The new design has the glassed section function as a counterpoint to the north-to-south portion, rising south-to-north. There is much less clash of overall design principles.

I also never liked the two storey top of the prior design -- it seemed to be in slightly different material, with much less definition, and that sleekness was contrary to the rest of the building. Now that section, with more defined cladding, is a more integrated part of the building, an "interior" block that is anchored lower on the building, and extends up to give the section definition. It is no longer an afterthought "hat", but an integral part of the structure.

All that said, the opinions of all concerned are based on a render from one angle, and it is really hard to determine what the interplay of the concrete and glass portions are on the other sides.
 
Maybe this isn't a surprise, but I don't mind it. I like the original render more, as the graduated center peak has a more stately look, one that I think compliments the overall aesthetic of this building. This render seems to modernize that a bit, and not really in the best way. But still, I think the building is tasteful.
 
The issue could easily be solved by lowering the height of the precast corner on the left-most side of the tower (in the image). That should allow for a bit for breathing room for the vertical element to properly display itself.

Heck, at this point, I'd even make the precast portions symmetrical on both sides of the tower.
 
They've resolved the conflicts inherent in the original push-me-pull-you design without overstepping their mandate and trashing it entirely, the apparently non-negotiable Monstrous Carbuncles are now sensibly integrated into the whole, and it looks like one building rather that two or three ideas struggling for supremacy. They've accomplished everything that one could reasonably expect, considering what they had to work with.
 
Still feel those boxes still come off as trying to hard to add interest. They should just get rid of them or in the least not place them in random locations. Otherwise count me in amongst those who prefer the new design. The height of the utmost setback of the old version always seemed strangely proportioned to me and the resolution of the setbacks on top correspond with the lower transition between stone/precast and glass.
 
It looks like a pixelated Trump, sans spire. At Least It's Not Another Glass Box(TM) though, am I right?
 
Ramako said:
I've heard that there are towers in the world that are neither dull glass boxes nor poorly proportioned spandralized schlock. Imagine if we didn't have to choose between the two?
Click to expand...

Oh, I agree, but I'm mocking the general sentiment around here that assumes there are indeed only two choices.
 
egotrippin said:
Oh, I agree, but I'm mocking the general sentiment around here that assumes there are indeed only two choices.
Click to expand...

If we look at the highrises that have popped up in downtown Toronto in the last few years, for the most part, doesn't it seem that most towers do fall into these two categories? (I'm thinking of high rises that are largely or completely done in central Toronto only.)
 
If this sailed through community council "gushingly" I wonder if we can expect a height increase if it sells well? I still say it's a great location for more height.
 
I've come around on this redesign. At first I was a bit surprised by it because I had one idea in my head that was put forward by the previous version. The new design seemed to break what my idea of this tower was. Looking at it again with fresh eyes, it's something different, seemingly no longer trying has hard to emulate the 1920's with a 2010's spin kind of feeling. There's still a lot of symmetry in the design.

I think US summed it up pretty well when he said...
Urban Shocker said:
They've resolved the conflicts inherent in the original push-me-pull-you design without overstepping their mandate and trashing it entirely, the apparently non-negotiable Monstrous Carbuncles are now sensibly integrated into the whole, and it looks like one building rather that two or three ideas struggling for supremacy. They've accomplished everything that one could reasonably expect, considering what they had to work with.
Click to expand...
 
dt_toronto_geek said:
If this sailed through community council "gushingly" I wonder if we can expect a height increase if it sells well? I still say it's a great location for more height.
Click to expand...
I think one of the main reasons they changed the top of this was because of shadow impacts. I doubt we'll be seeing a height increase.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top