Toronto Bay Adelaide Centre | 217.92m | 51s | Brookfield | KPMB

The architecture is certainly fair game, but the notion that some people are espousing that this project is somehow beneath American standards is ridiculous. Urban Toronto is primarily a forum to discuss urban design and architecture, but there are many many more components that make up the full sum of a successful urban development or successful downtown office development. To those UT members who interact with the project by gazing up from the sidewalk, commenting on the architecture (or lack-thereof), which is one aspect of the project is fair I suppose... but I'll be happy to compare this to our neighbours to the south through a different set of measures:

> Two towers of just over two million square feet (how many US cities outside of NYC, Seattle & SF I don't think any US cities have any all office projects of this scale - Toronto has multiple)
> Investment of several hundred million dollars in downtown core (likely over $1 billion)
> Investment supports thousands of constructions jobs and millions in materials supporting local economy
> Direct investment supported tens of millions of dollars in tax revenue for three levels of government during construction process (Development Charges, LTT, GST/HST, corporate taxes from firms involved in construction + EI, income taxes, CPP, WSIB, EI collected from the thousands of construction workers, architects, planners, engineers and other professionals involved in the project)... these types of projects are massive investments in the local economy and for all three levels of government.
> BAC "stump" was a symbol of the 1990s recession and failed office market... keep in mind with all these USA comparisons that MANY US jurisdictions are still suffering from most recent recession - we are in a far far different circumstance in Toronto and I believe we suffer somewhat from a "centre of the universe" perspective looking a gift horse in the mouth... most American jurisdictions would have begged for a similar project with tens of millions of dollars in direct tax incentives and direct government investment to subsidize building such complex
> Several thousand high quality jobs/workers working in the downtown core through employers that have chosen downtown Toronto as their choice location for investment
> Transit oriented development located on PATH with direct connections to transit
> Several millions dollars in annual property taxes for the City of Toronto
> Public space (Arnell Plaza + Cloud Gardens)
> Heritage restoration on both Yonge & Bay
> $80 million public contribution with original approvals (Cloud Garden & social housing)
> LEED Gold energy performance

Lastly I'll close by saying this - the architecture is one component, but for anyone that has done any business with any firms located in the BAC, the quality of the office space is 100% AAA and in my opinion second to none in the downtown core. At the end of the day this is a AAA space in which some of the top firms in the city are located in due to location & quality of space - the offices are really showcase spaces due to the quality of the project (in fact many firms from the traditional MINT towers built in the 70s & 80s are moving to the so called architecturally boring new towers because the quality of space is much higher).... architecture is a critical component to city building, but some people posting here are pretty jaded with their comments - this project provides high quality top notch space that ranks up there with anything being built today in the US.

Could it have been better, sure - but some of the negative dismissive comments (especially comparing to our neighbours to the south) are over-the-top. We should always strive to be better, but this project is really a set of background buildings within the cityscape (and how many cities can boast 50-storey office towers that are background buildings in terms of architecture).
 
Edward Skira said:
Bang on Mike!
Click to expand...

+1

This might look boring to people but remember as a TENANT you want a square or rectangle. It's the most efficient, it's the easiest to move/shuffle groups/people as needed and it ends up being the most cost effective while also giving a good amount of light and ease of use for the tenant. You don't have to do wonky space planning. Things fit.

Compare that to Royal Bank Plaza. Hugely annoying shape makes odd floor plans and you loose a HUGE amount of space (that you are paying for) with the windows they way they are.

While the outside architecture is very conservative, the actual execution and finishings are top notch. These are very easy buildings to work in every day.

That matters.
 
Bayer said:
I use the Path extensively, but who has the time to walk all over the financial district for a mere food court meal? This new tower will bring thousands of workers to the area; additional facilities would be welcome. But I will be happy to walk a bit further than usual to have lunch at Canoe in a couple of days!
Click to expand...

Well, most of those workers are coming from other buildings downtown, so not an influx of new Subway customers. And if you don't have time to go out, bring your PB&J from home and eat in your cube!
 
Functionality is great... but I'm talking specifically about the architecture and what this looks like compared to offices in the United States... I find this unremarkable and bland.

I appreciate the essay, but this still does not even come close to the sea of beautiful office buildings found in the United States.... Completely different argument.
 
Instead of making broad generalizations and comparisons that people can pick apart with minutiae and straw men, let's just agree that some people find this tower to be bland and others find it to be satisfactory. WHOOSH.

KPMB has a lot of great work and I'm sure there will be some nice design touches here, but to me, the complex certainly does look like a KPMG/Deloitte office. Good background buildings, though, and I'm sure they are pretty nice to work in.

Edit: I think the podium is a real missed opportunity by the way. It didn't need to mimic the tower so closely; could have been much more visually engaging without detracting from its intended use or detracting from the tower.
 
Last edited:
Was going to say the same that they are nice background buildings. The heritage building restoration is top shelf here. That's the exciting part of this whole project. If every decent historical structure on Yonge was cleaned up and restored like this and Five, I'd be in heaven.
 
Historical Yonge

NBGtect said:
Was going to say the same that they are nice background buildings. The heritage building restoration is top shelf here. That's the exciting part of this whole project. If every decent historical structure on Yonge was cleaned up and restored like this and Five, I'd be in heaven.
Click to expand...

...So would I ...
 
Mike in TO said:
Lastly I'll close by saying this - the architecture is one component, but for anyone that has done any business with any firms located in the BAC, the quality of the office space is 100% AAA and in my opinion second to none in the downtown core. At the end of the day this is a AAA space in which some of the top firms in the city are located in due to location & quality of space - the offices are really showcase spaces due to the quality of the project (in fact many firms from the traditional MINT towers built in the 70s & 80s are moving to the so called architecturally boring new towers because the quality of space is much higher).... architecture is a critical component to city building, but some people posting here are pretty jaded with their comments - this project provides high quality top notch space that ranks up there with anything being built today in the US.
Click to expand...

Just a note on this. Many people on this board seem to separate functionality from architecture completely. What they fail to understand is that functionality is architecture. Being an architect is about much more than designing the "look" of a building. So while it is true that this tower may be architecturally boring, that isn't the same thing as saying that it is architecturally bad. From the rest of your comment, I'd be inclined to say the opposite. An office building that provides quality office space is good architecture, even if it isn't the most exciting thing to look at.

Of course, that isn't to say that creating visual interest isn't a part of an architect's job. But to act as if all the architect does is design a shell and hand it over to the engineers to make it work is wrong.

I feel like I'm on a crusade against the forum tonight, sorry haha. I agree with the rest of your post.
 
TDotTeen said:
Just a note on this. Many people on this board seem to separate functionality from architecture completely. What they fail to understand is that functionality is architecture. Being an architect is about much more than designing the "look" of a building. So while it is true that this tower may be architecturally boring, that isn't the same thing as saying that it is architecturally bad. From the rest of your comment, I'd be inclined to say the opposite. An office building that provides quality office space is good architecture, even if it isn't the most exciting thing to look at.
Click to expand...

Completely agreed but I feel like this post conflicts a bit with your views on recreating heritage (from the other thread). (Recreating a heritage aesthetic vs. creating functional, useable spaces that take advantage of the latest in people-oriented design).
 
modernizt said:
Completely agreed but I feel like this post conflicts a bit with your views on recreating heritage (from the other thread). (Recreating a heritage aesthetic vs. creating functional, useable spaces that take advantage of the latest in people-oriented design).
Click to expand...

Haha I was actually expecting someone to point out the apparent disagreement between my posts. In my opinion thoughh, there is no disagreement. For an office space, the number one concern is efficiency (space, energy, etc.). From this point of view the aesthetics are irrelevant. However, another key aspect of any building is one's experience with it, from the inside and out. So, while I don't think that this building is bad architecturally, it's also probably not going down as one of the best buildings of all time. To be exceptional, functionality and aesthetic design need to be combined.

This is even more important for residential buildings. Since the function of a residential building is to provide a living space for people, comfort and experience are much more important, and are in fact integral to the successful functioning of the building. Where an office building can be a success if it is ugly but efficient, no one wants to live in a space just because the floor space is maximized, or it doesn't consume much energy. Both of these elements are important, but they don't matter if the experience of the building is unpleasant. Thus, I think we should focus much more on this experience.

The reason I advocate for a return to some architectural practices that might be classified as "heritage" is because these styles seem to be much more successful in the experience category. It seems that what has happened in modern architecture is that efficiency, and "purity" of design have completely replaced the focus on experience. In an office setting this may be excusable, but in other forms of architecture, such as residential, it is not.

Hope I'm making sense.
 
TDotTeen said:
This is even more important for residential buildings. Since the function of a residential building is to provide a living space for people, comfort and experience are much more important, and are in fact integral to the successful functioning of the building.
Click to expand...

Tell that to someone who works 9-5 in an office environment and/or spends more time in their office than they do at home in a residential unit.

Ironically / contrary to your argument, the office buildings we have look the way they do largely based on a one-size-fits-all approach from developers, in order for them to spend less but still create space that is appealing enough to be rented out by various companies for their workers; and the idea of architecture that encourages productivity from workers is still a tough sell. A lot of LEED and other new building grading systems make an attempt to promise "increased productivity" from workers but it's hard to pin that down or measure it with any real metrics that can be tied to design. Meanwhile, residential developments have the modern all-glass look they have come to feature in Toronto because of pressure directly from buyers who want to have endless views and no solid walls on the perimeters of their units. It is that exact demand for comfort and views and delight that has led to this style of residential building in Toronto that you have decried as snobbery. ;)

High-rise office building designs do tend to follow a pretty "functional" typology, sure, but I'm not sure that a building fitting that typology (Bay-Adelaide Centre, TD Centre, etc. etc.) is necessary the most functional in the sense that it is the best for the people who use it. It works efficiently, but even "efficiency" is subjective, or at least can be measured by many different metrics. There are plenty of office towers that work like clockwork but are not that enjoyable for the end-user. There are also a lot of fully-glazed condo buildings that are delightful to live in (despite climate problems or build-quality issues). It's not black-and-white.

I would also argue that office buildings demand visual interest and engagement, and that it should be tied to the function of the building in the same way that it should for residential buildings. The cost might be greater in monetary value, but if a developer/builder can be convinced to invest the money in better architecture, I think it's worth it. Aesthetics and function are largely inseparable in a lot of very successful projects, whether they are offices or residential units. Office buildings like Bay-Adelaide look the way they do aesthetically because the builders followed a very safe, leasable approach resulting in a building that has wide appeal to firms like KPMG or Deloitte. If it "functions" well is up to the office workers who live a large portion of their lives in these buildings and alternate between cubicles and an underground food court (to put it harshly). For me, a large part of functionality in an office building would be providing a degree of delight for the office workers, including interesting breakaway spaces and/or terraces on higher levels or throughout the building, 1) because human beings require such a thing, and 2) because it just might increase their productivity when it's all said and done. What a developer of office buildings might consider efficient and highly leasable, may not be as "functional" as you think. It's relative.

I agree with a lot of what you are saying but I'm just pointing out, once again, how things got to where they are, and how it's not as simple as "snobbery" that neo-modernism has taken a stronghold in Toronto. There are a lot of moving parts.
 
Last edited:
I guess I think that sometimes (often) people don't really know what they want...now I'm starting to sound like the snob (maybe I am). But at the same time, what you're saying doesn't completely contradict my argument.

If large windows are important to the experience inside a building (personally I would prefer some walls as well, but let's just assume that the current trend exists because people like them), then that's well and good. But the experience of the outside of the building is important too. This is something I didn't touch on as much in my previous post but it is important nonetheless. It applies to office buildings as well. Many people - and in this I believe it really is many people, not just me - are quite unsatisfied with the exterior built form in this city. One of the most common complaints concerns the over-use of glass. If a certain style of architecture works well on the interior but not on the exterior, it is still flawed.

In a sense, you could say that pre-war architecture wins on the exterior, with modern architecture succeeding inside. But why settle for this, when we could combine the pluses and (ideally) eliminate the negatives to create a superior style?

PS. I don't necessarily even agree that all-glass is really what people want. Many high-end towers combine other materials at the expense of window space (many of the new supertalls in Manhattan for example). However, even if it is what people want, that doesn't necessarily make it better.

PPS. As you can probably tell, I'm still working out the details of my all-encompassing theory of architecture, please excuse any disagreements that I have not/cannot address :D
 
I don't expect you to settle on a particular theory or view, and your ideas will change over time. Even the greatest architects have changed and developed their theories of architecture across their careers.

I enjoy the banter and discussion. Your ideas on this are better-developed and more all-encompassing than many of my own peers in architecture school, so please keep thinking about these things. We need minds like yours!

(ps. I also agree that although a lot of buyers want all-glass condos, and that developers claim that this is why they continue to build this way in such great quantities, I don't entirely buy it either. A project with less glazing can make for a much better place to live. Again, there are so many ways of looking at it. Unfortunately, the market/economy/desire to make huge profits often limits what architectural visions become when they are distilled into their final, built form.)
 
modernizt said:
Completely agreed but I feel like this post conflicts a bit with your views on recreating heritage (from the other thread). (Recreating a heritage aesthetic vs. creating functional, useable spaces that take advantage of the latest in people-oriented design).
Click to expand...


You can still have a heritage facade with a completely modern interior that meets the needs, functionality and codes of today... What is this point, besides ridiculous. Heritage does not = nonfunctional. Your bias clearly shows.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top