Toronto Concord Sky | 299m | 85s | Concord Adex | Kohn Pedersen Fox

maestro said:
It was meant to be lighthearted. Speaking of KPF, I've become less enamoured with each project they have delivered in Toronto. I don't find any as stinkers. Parade at Cityplace does flirts the line.
Click to expand...
KPF took their name off of Parade after Concord Adex value-de-engineered the skin down to what you see today, leaving Page + Steele holding the bag on that one.

42
 
condovo said:
^^^More melodrama and hyperbole. Supertalls and megatalls don't make a city "grown up." Conversely, a lack of them doesn't make a city "immature" or "timid." Just last week, the Economist Intelligence Unit rated Toronto the 7th best in the world, tied with Tokyo. Mercer puts us at 15, I think. Where do Shenzhen and Dubai rank, pray tell? It's just ridiculous to equal a city's worth with the height of its buildings.

Oh, and name one advanced democracy that's approving 600m buildings. Megatalls are just a pissing contest for autocratic regimes.
Click to expand...

Whataboutism. Toronto is timid in many ways, democratic or not. Its planners have turned an impressive and elegant design into a stub of what it could have been.
 
The original submission for rezoning by Cresford is not proof that they were 100% behind building the 342 metre design. You're giving planners far too much credit.
 
People jumping to the conclusion that the city was behind the height reduction is equivalent to saying the new balconies on the design are also because the mayor likes balconies.
Decisions are usually driven by revenue and profit. The redesign probably has more to do with economics and the marginal cost of building taller vs. building wider.
 
madknife said:
and slender. and sleek.
not trolling, just curious, do you like the current iteration more than the last? if so, why?
Click to expand...

I don't like either - but that's just my personal opinion regarding the KPF style. The first iteration just look anorexic with a poorly defined podium (toothpick on a canape look); the second version probably have a better presence (more muscular in scale), but feels a little Hudson Yard clunky with the projections that I have never been a fan of.

AoD
 
Yegger said:
People jumping to the conclusion that the city was behind the height reduction is equivalent to saying the new balconies on the design are also because the mayor likes balconies.
Decisions are usually driven by revenue and profit. The redesign probably has more to do with economics and the marginal cost of building taller vs. building wider.
Click to expand...
Yes, the City was behind the height reduction. The settlement offer is incredibly prescriptive regarding most every design aspect of this proposal, and is evidence of lengthy negotiation.

42
 
felix123 said:
And you're giving the city far too much credit.
Click to expand...

How so? I care about design over how many metres tall a building is. There's no evidence to support that Cresford would have built the original design with as of right zoning in place. There is plenty to support that they weren't completely behind it with the settlement and a more value added redesign. I can't think of any reason why the redesign can't be even more spectacular than the original at the reduced height. That's not on the city or planners. That's on the developer.
 
maestro said:
How so? I care about design over how many metres tall a building is. There's no evidence to support that Cresford would have built the original design with as of right zoning in place. There is plenty to support that they weren't completely behind it with the settlement and a more value added redesign. I can't think of any reason why the redesign can't be even more spectacular than the original at the reduced height. That's not on the city or planners. That's on the developer.
Click to expand...

Although we may never know the developer's true intentions when they unveiled the taller, original design, we do know definitively that the city has lopped several storeys over many buildings in the past.
 
So why not cut the previous one down.. keeping that design. It might have looked just as good. And the angles could have appeared more extreme? To bad. This new design is needing a little help. Maybe some sorta thing going up the back side/North side. Perhaps curve the balconies or something.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top