Toronto Four Seasons Hotel and Private Residences Toronto | 203.9m | 52s | Lifetime | a—A

[WiddleBittyKitty]

I was just thinking myself "how sad is it that the glassy modernist bottom of this building didn't have the historicky pastiche of One St. Thomas on top". I mean, there's just too much of that fantastic glazing and refined and restrained design - my widdle head is asploding!

 

[steveve]

Anyone else find this tower exceptionally boring from the neck up?

I can't comment on the streetscape effect or the grounds obviously but to be frank this tower is really dull, particularly for something billed as ultra-luxury.

In my opinion One St. Thomas just blows this box away.

i agree that this tower is really boxy, and the upper portion is completely plain aside from the few balconies, however, it doesn't mean this tower is garbage. Boxes are completely legit if you do them right,
i don't think it's even fair to compare one st. thomas to Four seasons. they're complete opposites, four seasons is probably the best box tower you'll get, and one st thomas the best precast. it's like comparing lebron james to sidney crosby ( i know... it's a horrible example)

 

[interchange42]

Actually, that's a pretty good example Steveveveveveveveve.

42

 

[CN Tower]

I was just thinking myself "how sad is it that the glassy modernist bottom of this building didn't have the historicky pastiche of One St. Thomas on top". I mean, there's just too much of that fantastic glazing and refined and restrained design - my widdle head is asploding!

Sarcasm noted and dismissed.

You guys honestly don't see a strong similarity here?

 

[vegeta_skyline]

You guys honestly don't see a strong similarity here?

In term of the general shape of the building, yes but thats where the similarities end.

Unlike Luna (which is not the worst example out there, at least one side of the building has something going for it), the 4 Seasons has a high quality curtain wall which is rarely seen on residential buildings in this city. The building does not make any use of the much hated spandrels. The balconies are discreetly positioned and don't draw attention to themselves. The tower does have a few setback to differentiate itself from other glass boxes which are almost entirely symmetrical. The setbacks also serve to reduce the impact of the building at the street level. But what I just might appreciate most are the vertical fins running along the side of the building which emphasis the buildings height and slenderness.


I have a strong hostility towards glass boxes, but if the design incorporates high quality features its easy to make an exception.

I almost can't believe I just defended an aA building... I've betrayed the club! In any case, its aA's recent work that I have a distaste for.

it's like comparing lebron james to sidney crosby ( i know... it's a horrible example)

Right on the moeny steveve! unlike Mr. Lebron there.

 

[dt_toronto_geek]

i don't think it's even fair to compare one st. thomas to Four seasons. they're complete opposites, four seasons is probably the best box tower you'll get, and one st thomas the best precast.

Absolutely agree.
High profile "glass boxes" don't get much better than Four Seasons (sorry Casa). And for those on the fence, walk over to it and look up - there's more than just glass going on here on the north and south sides. Another example of a glass high-rise that should have been much taller is Telus House. Amazing things happen there though it's already becoming lost down there among a sea of mediocrity.

 

[CN Tower]

I wasn't comparing the architectual style of 1ST to the FS. I was merely noting that to me 1ST has some uniqueness and stands out as high quality project for Toronto while the FS doesn't, imo. Aside from the curtain wall I fail to see anything impressive about the structure.

It is not a landmark building imo. This is a landmark building:

 

[CN Tower]

The balconies are discreetly positioned and don't draw attention to themselves.

That's because there are tiny!

 

[vegeta_skyline]

It is not a landmark building imo. This is a landmark building:

Hey you'll get no arguments from me there. I would to love to have a something like the beekman tower go up in this city. But if thats the standard your going by not that many buildings in the world today will live up to it. (Personally I'd say Toronto has 1 - Scotia plaza)

Anyhow that doesn't mean that the 4 Season's isn't a high quality building. Is it a landmark? I'd say its close, but ultimately it depends on individual taste.

And yes the balconies are small, just the way I like them

 

[Automation Gallery]

This is a landmark building:

I don't know about that, same height as Aura (264 meters)
I'll take the design of Aura over that anytime.

 

[dt_toronto_geek]

That's because there are tiny!

12' X 12' (144 sq. ft.) isn't exactly a tiny balcony, and they are private balconies with no "screens" to separate spaces.

 

[vegeta_skyline]

I'm really looking forward to seeing Aura as well.
While the 4 Season's is a quality building, ultimately its not the skyscraper that will define our skyline(i.e. considered a landmark that people outside of Toronto will immediately recognize) as I feel its constrained by its form. Aura on the other hand does have that potential and not because of sometime so primitive as its height(yes that is nice too), but due to its a unique design.
From the off set ovals on the upper portion to the change in form and set back half way up all the way down to the well integrated based. Perhaps most importantly its all glass and no box (the lower portion may be 4 sided but its certainly not a box). The glass looks to be a pleasant metallic blue with no green tinge - the Ritz's shortcoming and lets not forget that a curtain wall will be used.

The naysayers are quick to write off Graziani + Corazza based on their past history. Before Aura I had no keen interested in any of their designs. But once they came out with this refreshing design they certainly had my attention. Perhaps people are being cautious before endorsing this one, but I have a feeling they'll be pleasantly surprised.

Ultimately I feel that Aura and the L tower, are going to be the defining skyscrapers of the current boom.

 

[dt_toronto_geek]

Ultimately I feel that Aura and the L tower, are going to be the defining skyscrapers of the current boom.

And potentially One Bloor, ICE and 40 Scott

 

[Johnzz]

Ultimately I feel that Aura and the L tower, are going to be the defining skyscrapers of the current boom.

Agreed!

Artistic renderings of Aura don't do it justice. Additionally, people underestimate the sheer mass of this building. For example, most renderings/models portray Aura and One Bloor as equal size, yet Aura contains almost twice the square footage. In fact, Aura's total square footage is even 65% larger than both Four Season towers combined (1,300,000 vs 844,200).

 

[vegeta_skyline]

And potentially One Bloor, ICE and 40 Scott

Yes you are right, I slightly prefer Aura & the L tower's design but I could understand why someone else would favor any of the above or all of them for that matter. Shangri-La could also qualify for the 'best we have to offer' category. In fact until I see more of Aura & L, I'd say its the currently the most attractive skyscraper thats u/c right now.