Automation Gallery
Superstar
Yeah i agree we have to get out of the box, but then again i dont mind the smaller 25-30 storey builds.
Lets hope that the proposed over 180 meter (45 Bay/43 Simcoe/BAC-3/BCE-3/880 Bay) bigger ones come out of the box.
Toronto RBC WaterPark Place III | 140.2m | 30s | Oxford Properties | WZMH
- Thread starter Frank
- Start date
Yeah i agree we have to get out of the box, but then again i dont mind the smaller 25-30 storey builds.
Lets hope that the proposed over 180 meter (45 Bay/43 Simcoe/BAC-3/BCE-3/880 Bay) bigger ones come out of the box.
Filip
Senior Member
You will rarely see an average office building of ~30 floors built anywhere in the world that isn't conservative. Landmark projects and major headquarters are, but those are few and far between in Toronto. I doubt we'll ever see something on the scale of Scotia Plaza built in the next 20-30 years unless those omnipresent Manulife rumours pan out.
I'm personally excited a major office development has secured a tenant that had the option of going for much cheaper pastures in the 905, to stay in the city and help by developing an urban scar.
CITY_LOVER
Active Member
Completely agree, however, it would be nice to see slight variations from boxes in our latest crop of office towers - this is a general comment for office projects in the core.......
maxt797
Active Member
I just saw the render and honestly my first thought was that this would go really well next to the two RBC buildings near 401 and Mississauga Road...
I was really hoping for an attractive 50+ office tower in this spot.
Not to be getting off-topic but the site directly north of it used to have some old building just recently demolished - its very close to Gardiner and just south of MLS... Is there a thread for it and do we know what goes there (i cannot find thread for it).
I was really hoping for an attractive 50+ office tower in this spot.
Not to be getting off-topic but the site directly north of it used to have some old building just recently demolished - its very close to Gardiner and just south of MLS... Is there a thread for it and do we know what goes there (i cannot find thread for it).
Parkdalian
Senior Member
The rendering looks great!
Red October
Senior Member
90 Harbour.
Northern Magus
Active Member
It's a good design, but I'd prefer it 10-15s taller.
Big Daddy
Senior Member
It's the architectural mediocrity - we Torontonians are so infected with it we are inclined to say "thanks, at least it's better than a parking lot" without thinking it could have been so much more.
This building will sit at the front of every postcard and picture of our skyline for decades to come - would have been nice if it made a better statement about our city other than "it created jobs".
marcus_a_j
Senior Member
If you are referring to the postcard shot from the Island, this building will mostly be behind Harbour Square.
kd86
New Member
Has anyone ever heard the saying "what’s worth doing, is worth doing well". I'm basically implying that if they’re going to build an office building at least make it taller and more iconic. This building is more suitable for Scarborough or Mississauga city centre, not downtown Toronto.
If this is what the market is producing maybe were not really in a boom as some people may suggest, maybe were just pushing small proposal out of desperation,
or maybe Canadian developers are just too conservative to take on more risk. Who knows I'm no analyst. All I can say is if I were a planner for the city of Toronto I would impose a zoning bylaw prohibiting the development of any office building under 40 storeys in the downtown core. That would certainly mitigate the risk of getting disappointing proposals like this one.
If this is what the market is producing maybe were not really in a boom as some people may suggest, maybe were just pushing small proposal out of desperation,
or maybe Canadian developers are just too conservative to take on more risk. Who knows I'm no analyst. All I can say is if I were a planner for the city of Toronto I would impose a zoning bylaw prohibiting the development of any office building under 40 storeys in the downtown core. That would certainly mitigate the risk of getting disappointing proposals like this one.
CanadianNational
Senior Member
Awesome doesn't have to be ridiculous or outrageous: there are a million things to do with a building that can make it cool, stylish, fun, delightful and innovative...while it still fits in. I'd like to see Toronto build a new stand-alone building that is loved.
Redroom Studios
Senior Member
^^^ exactly, lets see some variation in style! a couple of the responses to my original criticism were that we need to accept buildings of 25-30 storeys and not everything can be iconic and tall. Nowhere did I mention height or that the building needed to be iconic. But we keep vomitting out these buildings that are almost exact copies of each other all within a range of a few blocks. (Telus/18 York and now this) Lets do something besides these banal rectangular glass boxes! As CN says above, there are a million different things to do but somehow architecture in Toronto only seems to know one. We are developing a hideous monoculture of buildings in what was mostly a blank canvas 5-10 years ago. Anyone can see that this style of building is consistently defaulted to because it is simply the cheapest and that rectangular floor plates maximize usable space... those are the main parameters for development, the architecture is farther down the list, when it should be first.
Bruvyman
Active Member
Why should architecture be the first priority for a developer? I'm not challenging you on that statement but would like to have some good justification since it would be hard to convince any company that they should give up profits/savings for reasons of aesthetics.
CanadianNational
Senior Member
^ I'd say that because no building should focus, or can focus, on profit alone.
For architecture to focus only on maximum profit is to reduce it to the status of mere building. For architecture to focus only on profit would remove everything that makes it art,and bearable - it's human, emotional, sensual, social and intellectual qualities. In short, it would degrade the environment it is in by stressing the inhuman, and it would shortchange and depress the creative capacity of humans all around.
Buildings like the one above could be grossly constructed out of rank precast and barely functional windows. But they're not? Why? Because the developer wants to impress and attract. That's a branch of profit - to get clients - but it's also an admittance of engagement with the side of us that needs delight and imagination.
This building as it stands is almost a snide concession to what makes architecture a great art: it's ability to marry the technical needs of the building with a great emotional and aesthetic response - reflecting well on society. This building - and many others like it, is meagre. It's getting away with what it can.
Architecture should be first - because it is the abstract, living, human thing that makes building worthwhile. It is evidence of how we view ourselves as a society. Aside from the use of it by people, it's the extra quality in a building that keeps it from just taking up space, and makes it lastingly generous. It needs to be included, because financial bottom lines will always try to get away with the least they can do, and by nature, squeeze out imagination. It doesn't mean a building has to be flighty, silly, ridiculous or unprofitable. Far from it. It means that a building worth putting up shows itself as such, and has some pride in it's show of that, however uniquely it does it.
For architecture to focus only on maximum profit is to reduce it to the status of mere building. For architecture to focus only on profit would remove everything that makes it art,and bearable - it's human, emotional, sensual, social and intellectual qualities. In short, it would degrade the environment it is in by stressing the inhuman, and it would shortchange and depress the creative capacity of humans all around.
Buildings like the one above could be grossly constructed out of rank precast and barely functional windows. But they're not? Why? Because the developer wants to impress and attract. That's a branch of profit - to get clients - but it's also an admittance of engagement with the side of us that needs delight and imagination.
This building as it stands is almost a snide concession to what makes architecture a great art: it's ability to marry the technical needs of the building with a great emotional and aesthetic response - reflecting well on society. This building - and many others like it, is meagre. It's getting away with what it can.
Architecture should be first - because it is the abstract, living, human thing that makes building worthwhile. It is evidence of how we view ourselves as a society. Aside from the use of it by people, it's the extra quality in a building that keeps it from just taking up space, and makes it lastingly generous. It needs to be included, because financial bottom lines will always try to get away with the least they can do, and by nature, squeeze out imagination. It doesn't mean a building has to be flighty, silly, ridiculous or unprofitable. Far from it. It means that a building worth putting up shows itself as such, and has some pride in it's show of that, however uniquely it does it.
Last edited:
Most of these developers are owned by pension funds. Their only goal is making money.