Commerce Court 3 | 302m | 64s | QuadReal | Hariri Pontarini

ptbotmpfn

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jul 20, 2015
Messages
121
Reaction score
83
It’s not bad, I mean it sad to see those angles go, but this dose add a fuller taller look and more in context that’s true. Hate to say it. Also, that spire is nice. Tad better in my opinion.
 

bilked

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Sep 13, 2013
Messages
1,085
Reaction score
4,384
Certainly a handsome pair being lost here:

https://www.google.ca/maps/place/30...3c072849819c8a!8m2!3d43.6487142!4d-79.3755403

Inviolable? I don't know. But I'm disappointed there's no attempt by HP to at least work with these facades, particularly CCE as the current HP design already contemplates enveloping a building of the same dimensions as CCE.

Glad somebody at HP is listening (riiiight). I’d still rather see the CCS facade retained as well, but this is clearly a much stronger effort, particularly with the CCE treatment. Looking forward to more details.
 
Last edited:

cd concept

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Oct 4, 2014
Messages
1,496
Reaction score
626
Even the first Pavilion rendering with that circus tent vibe looked even better than the new rectangle box Pavilion rendering . And they're going to tear down that concrete punctured window office structure for this !
 

milanista

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Nov 5, 2009
Messages
337
Reaction score
38
Location
King West
RBC, BC Investment Management, & QuadReal have recently inked a pretty substantial real estate investment partnership.
I'd assume that wouldn't hurt the progress of this development.
 

NeilV

New Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jul 10, 2018
Messages
97
Reaction score
228
Location
Toronto
The height is all about not adding shadow to St. James Cathedral and park.

Oh… and I'm going with the previous version looked ungainly. Sure it's purely rectilinear now which can be dismissed as boring, but it should be a clean design here: this building should complement and be referential to Commerce Court West, and the new design is. It also backs away slightly from Commerce Court North, and its design no longer competes for attention with the carved heads of CCN's ornate top. CC3 is more reserved and respectful now, and that's a good thing in this context. All good in my books.

42

So because an architect from 50 years ago designed a plain and drab building, all future buildings near it must be plain and drab too? What kind of planning rationale is that?
 

Ramako

Moderator
Member Bio
Joined
Oct 30, 2007
Messages
4,627
Reaction score
720
Location
Toronto, ON
Wow, how incredibly drab for such a high profile tower. They've even managed to somehow make it look like it has balconies, like every generic condo tower going up in this city. I already cringe when I regularly hear my international clients and colleagues comment on how boring our city looks. Toronto's well established reputation for architectural mediocrity continues. Utterly disappointing.
 

ushahid

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Sep 26, 2013
Messages
2,747
Reaction score
2,693
Location
Vernon, BC
^ I agree with NeilV. 50 years ago architects didn't have the technology they have today. it used to take months to design a building, now it takes few weeks to design a building. if architects nowadays were building in context and respect to older buildings all the buildings would be like boxes . this new design is very simple, some curves and style would have been better.
 

isaidso

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
May 23, 2007
Messages
1,625
Reaction score
1,125
Quelle surprise! It was beautiful so of course that's not the design we'll get. As with YSL my interest just plummeted. It's stuff like this that solidifies people's view that Toronto hasn't gotten 'there' yet. Want to be 1st rate you have to build 1st rate. We're fooling ourselves if we think we're matching the competition.
 

interchange42

Administrator
Staff member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
24,022
Reaction score
21,965
Location
by the Humber
Beautiful? What are you guys smoking?

So because an architect from 50 years ago designed a plain and drab building, all future buildings near it must be plain and drab too? What kind of planning rationale is that?
Looks the pile-on-the-gimmicks crowd is feeling stung. I'm in the if-there's-going-to-be-a-gimmick-make-it-just-one-gimmick-and-do-it-with-some-taste crowd. The previous version simply looked undisciplined, bloated, and screaming for attention that it didn't deserve. If it had actually looked good, I might be down too, but AFAIC we have dodged a bullet.

For those who only see CCW as plain and drab, and only see I.M.Pei as an architect from 50 years ago and nothing more, then you don't display any understanding of detail or proportion or any appreciation of history. Look up I.M. Pei just for starters. The rest will take a lot longer.

42
 
Last edited:

Top