Toronto 191 Bay | 301.74m | 64s | QuadReal | Hariri Pontarini

jaybe said:
Perhaps you misunderstand my comment. Builders will not maximize ROI if they put together a poorly thought out building that is finished cheaply - it will be difficult to obtain and retain tenants. For this rather obvious reason, quality design and ROI are aligned in commercial developments in the core. Say it with me now...
Click to expand...

This is Toronto. The standard for "quality design" is low because of the fact that everything that gets built gets leased or bought. Look at the Bay-Adelaide Centre buildings. Are those quality design? Is Commerce Court 3, an obviously too-fat building, an example of quality design? It seems that builders will not sacrifice leasable square footage in the name of design, so my point stands.
 
It's great to see the arguments on "fatness" of this tower. Its floor plate size is less than that of FCP. it may look fat in the renders, but its floor plate would fit inside FCP. The angular glazing may also contribute to the view of the size. It is also not a stubby tower i.e. too short for the floor plates size, making it look even wider.
Mind you this is all before final build drawings and final design has taken place. I am positive it will change from what we currently see.
 
tstormers said:
Mind you this is all before final build drawings and final design has taken place. I am positive it will change from what we currently see.
Click to expand...

The planning docs for the Hub was submitted later and it had went through one public iteration already. I am curious as to why there isn't any public update for this one so far.

AoD
 
AlvinofDiaspar said:
The planning docs for the Hub was submitted later and it had went through one public iteration already. I am curious as to why there isn't any public update for this one so far.

AoD
Click to expand...

I agree it has been awhile, but the review panels comments on CC3 were pretty intense, especially regarding the I.M. Pei buildings. This is why it might be taking a bit longer to come to a second review.

The DRP comments are here:

https://www.toronto.ca/wp-content/u...gn-DesignReviewPanel-MtgMinutes-25Jan2018.pdf
 
Haha, i'm i seeing things or is that a new design?
cc3 2.PNG
 

Attachments

  • cc3.PNG
    cc3.PNG
    92.4 KB · Views: 372
  • cc3.PNG
    cc3.PNG
    92.4 KB · Views: 398
It's a low quality crop of the original render
 
I think the building looks great. I didn't have any issues with the thickness of this building when I saw the renders. I do feel that way about the HUB though.

As for the DRP comments, I feel pretty let down. They pretty much ask the developer to maintain the courtyard, maintain the south and southwest low rise buildings because they are "desirable office space," and simplify the design of the new tower to more closely fit in with Commerce Court 2. Here we have this mind blowing and ambitious proposal which, granted, should be reviewed and analysed, and the DRP practically completely shoot it down..
 
Last edited:
iliamerk said:
I think the building looks great. I didn't have any issues with the thickness of this building when I saw the renders. I do feel that way about the HUB though.

As for the DRP comments, I feel pretty let down. They pretty much ask the developer to maintain the courtyard, maintain the south and southwest low rise buildings because they are "desirable office space," and simplify the design of the new tower to more closely fit in with Commerce Court 2. Here we have this mind blowing and ambitious proposal which, granted, should be reviewed and analysed, and the DRP practically completely shoot it down..
Click to expand...

They did not "shoot it down" - not even slightly. The comments didn't express anything 'preventative' per se, but merely cautionary in that we've got a significant complex with a lot of history here so tread lightly.

It expressly says: "The Panel then agreed to vote on the merits of the architectural design: a "vote of confidence in the [design team's] ability". However, the Panel noted that their vote was intended to supplement the Panel's overall comments and was not intended to supersede any of the advisory comments or feedback given during the Panel discussion."

Rascacielo said:
21st Century version of Chrysler Tower?
Click to expand...

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...g-sale-prompts-question-what-s-a-trophy-worth
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top