alklay
Senior Member
I too do not understand why the city would not want anything built underneath...but at the same time allow people to walk underneath. People can be hurt, but just not any landscaping?
Toronto Panorama at Concord CityPlace | 96.01m | 28s | Concord Adex | BDP Quadrangle
urbandreamer
recession proof
How about Self-storage units under the highway?
Michael62
Active Member
Interesting that you talk about things falling from the Gardiner. I live at Bay and Lakeshore and must walk under the Gardiner to get to Union Station.
During a rainstorm, or winter storm, the water pools in one spot on the Gardiner, when a transport truck or bus comes along it hit the pool of water
and waves of water come splashing over the guardrail and down onto the sidewalk at the north west corner of Bay and Lakeshore. It's funny because
people who live down here have don't stand at this spot, but others standing there waiting for the light get soaked.
If you look at the South side of ACC you can see the damage the water has done to the original building.
During a rainstorm, or winter storm, the water pools in one spot on the Gardiner, when a transport truck or bus comes along it hit the pool of water
and waves of water come splashing over the guardrail and down onto the sidewalk at the north west corner of Bay and Lakeshore. It's funny because
people who live down here have don't stand at this spot, but others standing there waiting for the light get soaked.
If you look at the South side of ACC you can see the damage the water has done to the original building.
Northern Magus
Active Member
Fair points all around, but there must be some things that can be done to mitigate the risk of falling objects/debris and the overpooling of water. The reality is that we need to integrate the Gardiner into the city around it, and that means bringing people and activities underneath it.
Redroom Studios
Senior Member
some images featuring Panorama from this past Thursday...
wesportly
New Member
Looks good from the water.
hbl33
Active Member
My favourite development out of all Cityplace projects. Radical in form, Conscious design in regard view circulation and seems actually well integrated alongside the Gardiner!
junctionist
Senior Member
It diverges nicely from the standard CityPlace box and I appreciate the experimental black top section, but I think they fumbled the idea. The original idea was probably for a sleek black monolithic top, but the difference between the black tinted windows and black panels is obvious even from a considerable distance. The squarish openings at the top further complicate the look.
It's still decent, but it's inline with the CityPlace pattern: the buildings start off looking cutting-edge modern, but the final product always looks watered down and compromised.
It's still decent, but it's inline with the CityPlace pattern: the buildings start off looking cutting-edge modern, but the final product always looks watered down and compromised.
condovo
Senior Member
^^ +1
achender
Active Member
Walking by there this evening I saw that the light columns that can be seen in the rendering below are installed. (Sorry no camera with me.) Also the blobs of blue are being painted onto the asphalt.
From http://static.worldarchitecturenews.com/:
From http://static.worldarchitecturenews.com/:
scarberiankhatru
Senior Member
Am I the only one who thinks Panorama looks extremely stubby? And that it looks oddly dated due to an assortment of elliptical-ish towers that have gone up in Toronto in recent years (mostly suburban, too) that are no less successful (or no more unsuccessful) at proclaiming "This is a round condo"?
ladyscraper
man alive
I see what you are getting at.. but if you compare Panorama to that roundish one at Scarborough Town Centre for example- I find the overall look and materials to be much more elegant and sharp here. I agree that it would look better if it were taller though.
It does look a bit stubby, yes. Thank goodness that it's 4 floors higher than was originally planned.
Despite that stubbiness however, I do appreciate this building aesthetically because it does not conform to the proportions we are used to seeing in the typical point tower rising today: it's good to give my aesthetic sense a challenge I figure! Similarly I do not find the big black blob on top beautiful from most angles, but it's oddball nature on the skyline is pretty cool, and a reminder that black can still be the new black.
Down on the ground, I couldn't be happier that this weirdly shaped and awkwardly located plot of land has been built on. I never expected a condo to be erected on that spot, and I certainly never expected one to go in with so much panache. That strip of Lake Shore, whose south side is definitely the forgotten back alley of the buildings along Queens Quay, and whose north side is loomed over by the Gardiner, always felt unloved and unlovable. Panorama definitely puts happy face on the road there, and makes one practically yearn for news that the potential Loblaws redevelopment immediately to the west is finally going ahead. Underneath the Gardiner, if they succeed in turning the render above into a reality that looks half as funky, I will be very pleased.
...but to get back to your question regarding datedness: are elliptical towers only part of our past? I hope not. Monarch's Waterscapes will join the pack, as will a very unstubby pair at Ãce, and ever-taller and curvier Marilyn is certainly a great twist on the elliptical. So no, Panorama does not look dated to me.
42
Despite that stubbiness however, I do appreciate this building aesthetically because it does not conform to the proportions we are used to seeing in the typical point tower rising today: it's good to give my aesthetic sense a challenge I figure! Similarly I do not find the big black blob on top beautiful from most angles, but it's oddball nature on the skyline is pretty cool, and a reminder that black can still be the new black.
Down on the ground, I couldn't be happier that this weirdly shaped and awkwardly located plot of land has been built on. I never expected a condo to be erected on that spot, and I certainly never expected one to go in with so much panache. That strip of Lake Shore, whose south side is definitely the forgotten back alley of the buildings along Queens Quay, and whose north side is loomed over by the Gardiner, always felt unloved and unlovable. Panorama definitely puts happy face on the road there, and makes one practically yearn for news that the potential Loblaws redevelopment immediately to the west is finally going ahead. Underneath the Gardiner, if they succeed in turning the render above into a reality that looks half as funky, I will be very pleased.
...but to get back to your question regarding datedness: are elliptical towers only part of our past? I hope not. Monarch's Waterscapes will join the pack, as will a very unstubby pair at Ãce, and ever-taller and curvier Marilyn is certainly a great twist on the elliptical. So no, Panorama does not look dated to me.
42
scarberiankhatru
Senior Member
Well that's part of it...Marilyn is already a *twist* on elliptical, while Waterscapes is totally retro and Ice is some kind of swiss cheese-inspired box with softened (melted?) edges. Panorama just seems late to the party in this round of round towers when people here usually talk about how everything in the suburbs is 5 or more years out of date as soon as the cladding goes up. I look at Panorama and I see a 'cruise ship bow' like Arc at Bayview and Sheppard or the profile of Ellipse at STC. Thanks to that black segment at the top, though, Panorama also looks like a giant lighter, which is fun. Panorama certainly beats those suburban condos in the site plan/lobby/landscaping department, though, which counts for something (but doesn't help the stubby tower). I don't think Panorama would look worse if the top 6 or so floors including the black part were chopped off, but it would look better if another, oh, 20 floors were added below the black part.
Ehhh, I wouldn't let the anti-suburban epithets about architectural currency shape my thinking on the matter: they come more often from snobbery than from a critical appraisal of the particular project in question.
Yes, Waterscapes is retro, and elliptical or spherical buildings are still the exception, but I am certain they will make up a greater portion of new buildings in the future. It's all them computers, y'know?
And yes, Panorama should have been 111 storeys tall, it's a missed opportunity, but I still like it.
42
Yes, Waterscapes is retro, and elliptical or spherical buildings are still the exception, but I am certain they will make up a greater portion of new buildings in the future. It's all them computers, y'know?
And yes, Panorama should have been 111 storeys tall, it's a missed opportunity, but I still like it.
42