Toronto Concord Canada House | 231.97m | 74s | Concord Adex | Arcadis

I think Cityplace is pretty good especially west of Spadina. Having said that I thought we'd seen rendering from some design competition last year for the Signature Towers. What happened?
 
N1, N2, Neo, Montage, Luna and Luna Vista are pretty good IMO. Something went seriously off the rails after Luna/Vista though. Parade is absolutely terrible, value-engineered to death, to say nothing of the Quartz and Spectra disasters. I suspect a changing-of-the-guard behind the scenes at Concord, with design-aware people (in Toronto?) shunted aside by bean-counting people (in Vancouver?).
 
Last edited:
I'm in the minority but I don't think it's the design is as painful as many make it out to be. The podium massing looks pretty good at 10s, and the towers themselves are pretty slender for their height. The problem really is the location on what arguably will be a landmark site anchoring the entire western half of the skyline. On that front the design should be much stronger but isn't any different than what's being built around it. Look wise I don't really see it being much worse than Maple Leaf Square and Harbour Plaza.
 
steveve said:
I'm in the minority but I don't think it's the design is as painful as many make it out to be. The podium massing looks pretty good at 10s, and the towers themselves are pretty slender for their height. The problem really is the location on what arguably will be a landmark site anchoring the entire western half of the skyline. On that front the design should be much stronger but isn't any different than what's being built around it. Look wise I don't really see it being much worse than Maple Leaf Square and Harbour Plaza.
Click to expand...

So essentially you are saying:

- it's not as painful as some people are making it out to be
- the towers are slender
- the design should be much stronger
- isn't any different than the quality of buildings around it
- isn't much worse than MLS or Harbour Plaza

That is both a very poor defense of the building given that you've just reiterated exactly why people are unhappy with it.

I'm not sure what the point of defending this mediocre design is. Should we be happy that it's not even more "painful"?

EDIT: The idea that any old coloured motif (especially one so poorly integrated into a design) is "public art" is laughable.
 
Last edited:
Harbour plaza looks slightly more high end then this. Then again we haven't seen the full rendering yet . But so far... It looks so blah. Given the height we need better!
 
steveve said:
the design itself wouldn't appear to be as bad if it were proposed elsewhere in different part of the city.
Click to expand...

You are still making a non-point. It doesn't matter how the design is rated or "appears" to people based on its proposed location. The design is the same calibre, regardless of its location. It's crappy.
 
steveve said:
I'm in the minority but I don't think it's the design is as painful as many make it out to be. The podium massing looks pretty good at 10s, and the towers themselves are pretty slender for their height. The problem really is the location on what arguably will be a landmark site anchoring the entire western half of the skyline. On that front the design should be much stronger but isn't any different than what's being built around it. Look wise I don't really see it being much worse than Maple Leaf Square and Harbour Plaza.
Click to expand...

I'd really like to know what the motive is for defending crappy architecture in Toronto. Why is it okay for a an outside developer to take what amounts to a massive dump on the city in its most prominent location? Once these towers are erected they will be poking peoples' eyes for many generations. Indeed, they are essentially plus size versions of the nearby H&D disasters that continue to blight the central waterfront.
 
salsa said:
Yes, thank you! I wonder if P23 has ever been to downtown Chicago or Manhattan.
Click to expand...

Lmao, really? Chicago and Manhattan? You mean the cities that have hundreds of box shaped buildings that people would whine about if they were constructed here? It's easy to sit back on your internet forum and link to excellent skyscrapers being built in those cities while ignoring the multitude of unimpressive buildings that are also being built there. I mean, look at this crap: http://wirednewyork.com/forum/showthread.php?t=12038
 
P23:

Yes, thank you for that link - is that tower asking for 60 AND 70 stories on the site? I would be interested in looking at projects at a comparable scale in said cities instead of one that is what, equivalent to a run-of-the-mill project in Toronto, which by the way, this proposal isn't.

At issue isn't asking for better for each and every single project and holding them to intense scrutiny - but asking for better from one that has already demanded much, and is asking for more.

AoD
 
Last edited:
P23 said:
Lmao, really? Chicago and Manhattan? You mean the cities that have hundreds of box shaped buildings that people would whine about if they were constructed here? It's easy to sit back on your internet forum and link to excellent skyscrapers being built in those cities while ignoring the multitude of unimpressive buildings that are also being built there. I mean, look at this crap: http://wirednewyork.com/forum/showthread.php?t=12038
Click to expand...
.

Yeah! Shut up and embrace mediocrity, Toronto!

Crappy, cheap condos are being built in NEW YORK (Albeit in the far corners of the Upper West side of Manhattan). So let's use that as precedent for the "signature" tower of downtown Toronto's largest real estate development.

??
 
I don't think that's what he's saying about Signature. He's just disagreeing about Toronto being the only place where mediocrity happens. Clearly, it is not. There's mediocrity and worse all over the world.

So, why is CityPlace shooting for mediocrity here? My theory: they have a huge number of units to sell here, and they don't want to upend the apple cart. A huge percentage of Concord buyers are from the investor crowd, and they need to price these towers to still sell to them.

I do not believe that Torontonians have much power to affect change when it comes to these plans, especially architecturally. Sure you can go to community consultations and complain about the height and shadows and wind and overlook corners, and sometimes the developers do cut their demands somewhat, but that's not what people are worried about here. This spot could take all the height that any developer would want to throw at it. What is unfortunate here is that we have little power to demand better architecture*, better materials, etc. And even the DRP doesn't oversee work here? That's just wrong for so prominent a site.

*Not like everyone can agree on what constitutes "better" architecture, but what I think we want here is at least something more cutting edge, more out-of-the ordinary, more unique, more memorable - - - something we can be proud to point to when it's done.
 
P23 said:
Lmao, really? Chicago and Manhattan? You mean the cities that have hundreds of box shaped buildings that people would whine about if they were constructed here? It's easy to sit back on your internet forum and link to excellent skyscrapers being built in those cities while ignoring the multitude of unimpressive buildings that are also being built there. I mean, look at this crap: http://wirednewyork.com/forum/showthread.php?t=12038
Click to expand...

You're using an attractive 27 story condo in Upper Manhattan as your prime example of equivalent atrocities built elsewhere? That building will never be noticed by anyone except the people who live there. A better example is required to defend your argument which seems to be, as another poster said, "embrace mediocrity". Just like New Yorkers do.
 
Every time I click this thread I'm expecting to see a new design revealed, and a "Haha JK guys! Here's the ACTUAL design. Love, Concord".

But no. We're stuck with this for now it seems. Boo Concord / P+S.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top