travis3000
Active Member
Am I the only one who isn't totally disgusted at it? Like it's not going to win any design awards don't get me wrong... but it's meh. Im not expecting anything great but I will hold out until I see the progress develop.
Toronto Concord Sky | 299m | 85s | Concord Adex | a—A
- Thread starter greenleaf
- Start date
UtakataNoAnnex
Senior Member
Sure, but instead on tone arguing...I think we should let readers say what they have to say. And if it doesn't match up with the evidence, call 'em out for it.
...but as I said though, the poster in question hasn't been saying anything different than anyone else has here. Not sure why you are centering this person out. Nor do I understand the need to draw out the reasons for disliking something...I mean, how many more ways do we really need to beat down this horse? >.<
Last edited:
enrigue8
Active Member
Since I expressed my opinion about the architecture of this skyscraper, I've noticed that I am very famous there for not being clear why I dislike Concord Sky.
What I dislike the most is the crappy and low quality materials that will be used to build the building. The choice of glasses, the poorly chosen spanderels and the final look of the building really show that the architects and the developer hugely failed to create an iconic landmark at a strategic place of the city.
It’s sad because the shape of the building is outstanding and badly exploited.
When I think about the original version presented by cresford, I feel totally disappointed . At that time, Cresford intended to create an unforgettable looking tower thanks to its unique shape coupled with very high quality materials. Unfortunately, this version didn't made it through the approval process. It miss me so much.
The second version was less spectacular than the first one, but was still awesome. Cresford managed to keep a nice look thanks to well selected materials. Even if I disliked the balconies on the east side of the tower, it was OK.
Honestly when I compare the two previous versions to the actual one, it's really obvious that the quality of the building has strongly decreased.
Concord Adex has the terrible reputation to create poorly designed buildings with cheap materials that often ruin the opportunities to create a better looking skyline.
I am often afraid that the balconies will look very gross and vulgar.
Here is also the part of the building that will face the Eaton Center and it could turn out to be ugly too.
Here is why I dislike it and why I consider it as a pure garbage.
I know that every person has its own taste and I understand that it's something very subjective.
Best regards everyone.
I don't leave in the GTA region... I leave in The Ottawa's region. I should not be concerned about the architecture of Toronto, but it's stronger than me. Toronto is the biggest city of Canada and I understand that the architecture of this city represents Toronto and Canada's architectural standards. This is why I want the best architecture possible for this important city of my heart.
What I dislike the most is the crappy and low quality materials that will be used to build the building. The choice of glasses, the poorly chosen spanderels and the final look of the building really show that the architects and the developer hugely failed to create an iconic landmark at a strategic place of the city.
It’s sad because the shape of the building is outstanding and badly exploited.
When I think about the original version presented by cresford, I feel totally disappointed . At that time, Cresford intended to create an unforgettable looking tower thanks to its unique shape coupled with very high quality materials. Unfortunately, this version didn't made it through the approval process. It miss me so much.
The second version was less spectacular than the first one, but was still awesome. Cresford managed to keep a nice look thanks to well selected materials. Even if I disliked the balconies on the east side of the tower, it was OK.
Honestly when I compare the two previous versions to the actual one, it's really obvious that the quality of the building has strongly decreased.
Concord Adex has the terrible reputation to create poorly designed buildings with cheap materials that often ruin the opportunities to create a better looking skyline.
I am often afraid that the balconies will look very gross and vulgar.Here is also the part of the building that will face the Eaton Center and it could turn out to be ugly too.
Here is why I dislike it and why I consider it as a pure garbage.
I know that every person has its own taste and I understand that it's something very subjective.
Best regards everyone.
I don't leave in the GTA region... I leave in The Ottawa's region. I should not be concerned about the architecture of Toronto, but it's stronger than me. Toronto is the biggest city of Canada and I understand that the architecture of this city represents Toronto and Canada's architectural standards. This is why I want the best architecture possible for this important city of my heart.
Attachments
TossYourJacket
Senior Member
I mean it would sure be an interesting marketing strategy for Concord to make their building look much uglier in renders than in real life, but who knows.
concrete_and_light
Active Member
Raising the subject of the lighting fixture for discussion. I believe this is the first we've seen of it?
I was wondering and hoping we'd see a lighting fixture here. If you're going to have a big hulking dystopian spandrel disaster of a tower next to another hulking dystopian spandrel disaster of a tower with a lighting fixture near a junky imitation Times Square IMO it's best to embrace the futuristic technotrash cyberpunk vibe and include some lights.
Aura's light fixture is the best aspect of Aura and is IMO legitimately cool at night and adds a dynamic interesting aspect to the city's skyline that has been a net positive for the city I think. I'm sorry Aura haters but it's just the truth
. For every person who complains about Aura online there's probably 100 people taking photos of it, or thinking it looks cool in the city background of a shot or just while walking at night. You notice it from so many places and it makes an impact. I know why people hate Aura and Aura is a mess and very low quality in many ways, but there's tons of jumbled imposing spandrel messes in this city now so it's not really so unique anymore and the lights give us something interesting in return.
It sounds like from posts I've read here that the City didn't like what happened with the light fixture at Aura and I know there are legit concerns around light fixtures being way too bright for residents or other buildings near by. So things should be done sensitively. But also, idk, I'm in favour of embracing a bit of techno futuristic lighting in our city as it grows, especially in areas like this.
That said, I think this lighting is kinda messy and weird in how it's randomly offset to the one side. It seems unbalanced and doesn't interact really with the shape of the building. The lines at the top really don't interact well with the shape of the roofline in an harmonious way to me — the last flat line right up against the angle of the roof looks so bad to my eyes like visual nails on a chalkboard, the geometric incongruity.
So I'm happy for the lighting, but really wish they could do something better here. Aura's lighting is interesting in its variation and starkness and how it works with the shape of the building. There would be so much potential with angular lighting on the roofline! (10 York does this really well and its lighting also really grabs attention and adds a dynamic aspect on the skyline in a great way.) Also this lighting will only be seen from the one side — Aura is a beacon from everywhere. I think something that highlighted the building's triangular shard shape could be interesting, but these randomly spaced and offset lines don't seem to interact with the shape of the building at all.
It will make a major impact from the south, this straight strip of beams of light all the way up. I feel like the City wont like the extent of the lighting, especially at the lower levels, though facing towards Yonge & Dundas maybe it's moot by comparison and with the Ryerson building to the south there will be no future tower built right facing it.
On balance I'm still pro-lighting, but I hope they improve it or it looks better than it seems like it will in these renders. However, likely either way in 5-10 years once I've processed and let go of all my expectations and emotions about it I'll probably notice it at night or end up taking some photos of it glowing in the sky of our city and think it looks kinda cool.
I was wondering and hoping we'd see a lighting fixture here. If you're going to have a big hulking dystopian spandrel disaster of a tower next to another hulking dystopian spandrel disaster of a tower with a lighting fixture near a junky imitation Times Square IMO it's best to embrace the futuristic technotrash cyberpunk vibe and include some lights.
Aura's light fixture is the best aspect of Aura and is IMO legitimately cool at night and adds a dynamic interesting aspect to the city's skyline that has been a net positive for the city I think. I'm sorry Aura haters but it's just the truth
. For every person who complains about Aura online there's probably 100 people taking photos of it, or thinking it looks cool in the city background of a shot or just while walking at night. You notice it from so many places and it makes an impact. I know why people hate Aura and Aura is a mess and very low quality in many ways, but there's tons of jumbled imposing spandrel messes in this city now so it's not really so unique anymore and the lights give us something interesting in return.It sounds like from posts I've read here that the City didn't like what happened with the light fixture at Aura and I know there are legit concerns around light fixtures being way too bright for residents or other buildings near by. So things should be done sensitively. But also, idk, I'm in favour of embracing a bit of techno futuristic lighting in our city as it grows, especially in areas like this.
That said, I think this lighting is kinda messy and weird in how it's randomly offset to the one side. It seems unbalanced and doesn't interact really with the shape of the building. The lines at the top really don't interact well with the shape of the roofline in an harmonious way to me — the last flat line right up against the angle of the roof looks so bad to my eyes like visual nails on a chalkboard, the geometric incongruity.
So I'm happy for the lighting, but really wish they could do something better here. Aura's lighting is interesting in its variation and starkness and how it works with the shape of the building. There would be so much potential with angular lighting on the roofline! (10 York does this really well and its lighting also really grabs attention and adds a dynamic aspect on the skyline in a great way.) Also this lighting will only be seen from the one side — Aura is a beacon from everywhere. I think something that highlighted the building's triangular shard shape could be interesting, but these randomly spaced and offset lines don't seem to interact with the shape of the building at all.
It will make a major impact from the south, this straight strip of beams of light all the way up. I feel like the City wont like the extent of the lighting, especially at the lower levels, though facing towards Yonge & Dundas maybe it's moot by comparison and with the Ryerson building to the south there will be no future tower built right facing it.
On balance I'm still pro-lighting, but I hope they improve it or it looks better than it seems like it will in these renders. However, likely either way in 5-10 years once I've processed and let go of all my expectations and emotions about it I'll probably notice it at night or end up taking some photos of it glowing in the sky of our city and think it looks kinda cool.
Last edited:
ushahid
Senior Member
^Wow! u wrote an essay man.
concrete_and_light
Active Member
UtakataNoAnnex
Senior Member
Well here's my 2 bit elaboration: This building will only work with clean lines and good materials. You know, the original KPF designed wedge before the developers changed hands under duress. It doesn't appear Concord wants to use those materials, so it looks a-A redesigned the building's "skin" to take in those lesser but more busy materials into consideration. It's probably why it looks they way it does from the renderings now...
...although taking in that renders don't always tell the whole truth consideration, I suspect it will look much worse when Concord's likely uses their standard back painted spandrel will cover this building. Because that's what looks like we'll end up with. And I hope I am real wrong in that. /sigh
...although taking in that renders don't always tell the whole truth consideration, I suspect it will look much worse when Concord's likely uses their standard back painted spandrel will cover this building. Because that's what looks like we'll end up with. And I hope I am real wrong in that. /sigh
Last edited:
officedweller
Senior Member
I think a lighting feature of vertical strips like Aura would look better. They probably went with horizontal lines to differentiate themselves from Aura, but it's a bit disjunctive, and they come too far down, potentially creating light pollution for neighbours.
In Vancouver, Concord's Arc has nice horizontal light strip bands, but it's part of a gateway facing Cambie Bridge, not other buildings.
In Vancouver, Concord's Arc has nice horizontal light strip bands, but it's part of a gateway facing Cambie Bridge, not other buildings.
steveve
Senior Member
It's mildly concerning to see imperfect elements that tend to show up in the final product (see Aura) visible in artists renderings. Even the mismatched floor heights seem to be strangely emphasized here, more so than in the original renderings for the Cresford version which did a better job at hiding them. There's a lot going on here:
...
Here's some additional context:
...
Here's some additional context:
Towered
Senior Member
Physical buildings very rarely wind up matching (never mind improving upon) the renders, so when the renders already set a laughably low bar in advance, we're guaranteed an absolute pile...
Doppleganger
Active Member
All buildings deserve, at the very least, good architecture, but those proposed for the heart of the city should aspire to something beyond just 'good' or 'ok'. I try to avoid trashing a building based on early renders, but this thing doesn't even pretend to aspire to the level of 'good' design, never mind 'great'. It's just lazy, awful design! Sad thing is, unless some significant modifications take place, we're gonna' be stuck with this abomination for the next 70-100 years! We owe ourselves and future generations something better than this. May the architecture Gods help us!
Last edited:
UtakataNoAnnex
Senior Member
It's the one thing I disagree with here...that it is a lazy, awful design. I mean it's still awful, but the architects are likely trying to salvage what's left from the bar that the new developer has just dropped into the gutter. So lazy, not. I feel sorry for a-A here having been left to clean up of what will probably be butchered from proprietor side. /sigh
alklay
Senior Member
This may end up looking worse than, dare I say it, Aura.
Won't anyone think of the children (who have to look at both of these buildings)?
Won't anyone think of the children (who have to look at both of these buildings)?
Bjays92
Senior Member
I was never super fond of this redesign by cresford to begin with. I vastly preferred the supertall propsal, but I still had some hope because of Cresford's track record.
Now Concord has taken the massing and design that was already questionable and done their thing. Hard not to be pessimistic about this. Toronto deserves better, certainly at this location and for this height.
Now Concord has taken the massing and design that was already questionable and done their thing. Hard not to be pessimistic about this. Toronto deserves better, certainly at this location and for this height.
Last edited: