Toronto Eight Cumberland | 170m | 51s | Great Gulf | a—A

vegeta_skyline said:
If I recall correctly, that was a criticism some had for RCMI. A tower that is almost universally praised now.


use of higher quality materials here(the curtain wall).
Click to expand...

This building is in the conceptual design stage. All we have is a rendering. There is no way you can possibly speak to the quality of the materials at this point, given that none of the materials will have been formally selected.
 
If they can pull off that sleek curtain wall then I think it could be a winner....maybe even a big winner. But this always looks good in renderings but very difficult to execute in the finished product. Those alternating bits are not just changes in glass panel colour like similar market-driven generic buildings that have employed that quickly boring look, but are raised panels.

It looks like a cross between 80's PoMo Transco Tower-ish and One57.

Or...I'm just letting my amazement over the fact that it has no balconies over-ride my normal cynical reaction.
 
vegeta_skyline said:
If I recall correctly, that was a criticism some had for RCMI. A tower that is almost universally praised now.



I find that to be a bizarre thing to say considering the clean lines, even portions and use of higher quality materials here(the curtain wall). That doesn't scream cheap to me and while its certainly no One Bloor I hardly see how it could lower the general standard of the architecture in the vicinity.
Click to expand...

Always liked RCMI. This tower's blocky pattern has a lot more in common with 230 Simcoe and Backstage. Any clean lines are ruined by a cheap faux PoMo pattern. I think it's too hard to gauge materials from the rendering. The panels can be interpreted as 3 storeys high which isn't going to happen. I think too many people are being woo'd by the lack of balconies here and not really seeing the gimmicky feature slapped on to the side of an elegant but, simple form. Most comments seem to start with the balconies.

Give some authenticity to the design. Dump the pattern running up the middle and recess the patterned corners, crown and, base. Want to express stepbacks than actually include stepbacks. Right now this looks like straight off of Sheikh Zayed Road. Well, maybe One Yorkvile fits the bill too but, at least its facade has actual definition.
 
Last edited:
UrbanFervour said:
The only thing this building "wants to do" is make a lot of money for the people at Phantom Developments.

That's IT.

The rendering shows what is essentially the most cynical looking PoS design we've seen to date.

Sorry if that gives some people on here a big sad... I know there are many forum members who will defend blandness, mediocrity, and sterility with every fiber of their being.
Click to expand...

Every development is built to make profit.
 
maestro said:
Every development is built to make profit.
Click to expand...

What people here seem to not realize is that developers who build buildings that don't make a profit tend to go out of business.

Every proposed building that is designed to be affordable by ordinary people is derided as "just another plain box". But including the features that are demanded on this board would push the psf beyond what more than a few people could afford.

Yes, Toronto can and should have as many standout buildings as the market can support. But the great majority of projects -- including many highly visible towers -- will always be ordinary-looking, nothing else is economically feasible.
 
Mongo said:
Yes, Toronto can and should have as many standout buildings as the market can support. But the great majority of projects -- including many highly visible towers -- will always be ordinary-looking, nothing else is economically feasible.
Click to expand...

An ordinary looking building is probably better than a building trying too hard to look different (or exciting). At it stands now, that's what we're getting. That, and the Cumberland street level seems rather clumsy.

AoD
 
Last edited:
I like it. I find it sleek and elegant. I love the massing and the pattern to the cladding. A little too much glass perhaps but that's the disease of our times. Still, I dig where it's going.
 
Hopefully they open one of these at the bottom

[video=youtube;o1ARLml7ZYU]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o1ARLml7ZYU[/video]
 
kris, that was the very first thought that went through my head when I saw that name hahaha. Delicious muchentuchen!
 
I personally like the blue glass against the black but yes this design is kinda blah! Some curves used in the blue maybe or just be it more chunky looking like another project (cant think of the name. its a smaller project, east side of the City)
 
Simple and elegant. Goes to show you can accomplish a lot with just a little bit of tweaking. A play with glass pattern and a nod to art deco at the top. I wouldn't mind one twice as tall with another set back half way up. This beats Casa, Festival Tower, and Pinnacle by a country mile. As is a 8.5/10.
 
Last edited:
isaidso said:
Simple and elegant. Goes to show you can accomplish a lot with just a little bit of tweaking. A play with glass pattern and a nod to art deco at the top. I wouldn't mind one twice as tall with another set back half way up. This beats Casa, Festival Tower, and Pinnacle by a country mile. As is a 8.5/10.
Click to expand...

Agreed...goes to show that small attention to details can make a basic design actually look good!
 
Am I actually seeing these comments or is this a bad dream?

Attention to detail? 8.5/10? People getting excited about the tiny setbacks at the top and the fact that the spandrel appears to be extruded a bit from the tower?

Standards, people!...
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top