Toronto The One | 328.4m | 91s | Mizrahi Developments | Foster + Partners

Lenser said:
I'm all for this tower getting built, but to conflate its realization with "the advancement of the city" is a bit rich. The drama!
Click to expand...

Hear you, but I stand by my quote. Tallest tower in the city so far, main intersection, Sir Norman Foster architect. Architecture matters.
 
The design is by Sir Norman Foster's firm. It's highly unlikely he was any more involved than signing off on it. Great firm but, a lot different from when Ken Shuttleworth was around. He was pretty much the lead behind every tower that reached fandom. One Bloor is not among their best either in particularly after the top got lopped off. Their recently revised proposal on Bay is much better.
 
buildup: height alone does not a great tower make. Look at Aura. It's striking, and it fares better at night, from a distance. But in the daytime, in all its ungainly form? I don't think so.

I don't buy that the reputation of the city hinges on this one tower. Not even among urban architectural enthusiasts! It's the latest craze for some, yes - and will remain so... until the next tall tower comes along.

But to each his own.
 
LOL, I never said the reputation of the city 'hinges' on this, but many would agree that any tower that would be the tallest, at a key intersection, and of a fine design (albeit not the best EVER) is a clear advancement.
To clarify, was referring to The One, not Aura. Are you comparing G&C with SNF??
 
buildup said:
LOL, I never said the reputation of the city 'hinges' on this, but many would agree that any tower that would be the tallest, at a key intersection, and of a fine design (albeit not the best EVER) is a clear advancement.
To clarify, was referring to The One, not Aura. Are you comparing G&C with SNF??
Click to expand...

I think the point being made is that height isn't the sole determinant of architectural merit (in fact, I'd argue it's very low down the list), Aura being an obvious example of that - sure, it's yuge, but it's but-ugly.

A couple dozen metres up or down, in the view of many, doesn't take make or break this proposal.
 
buildup said:
LOL, I never said the reputation of the city 'hinges' on this, but many would agree that any tower that would be the tallest, at a key intersection, and of a fine design (albeit not the best EVER) is a clear advancement.
To clarify, was referring to The One, not Aura. Are you comparing G&C with SNF??
Click to expand...

I get your point and it has a lot merit. They define the city skyline. They add to the aesthetics of the streetscape. I still can't get passed a private residential/commercial development as an advancement.
 
maestro said:
I get your point and it has a lot merit. They define the city skyline. They add to the aesthetics of the streetscape. I still can't get passed a private residential/commercial development as an advancement.
Click to expand...

Initially I interpreted your statement as socialist (which would be fine, although I'd disagree) suggesting anything privately-owned and not communal, unlike a train station, library, museum, or park was illegitimate. I dont think that is what you are saying. Perhaps you are just defining 'advancement' more narrowly than I. To me, anything that adds to the aesthetics of a city is an advancement.
 
Lenser said:
buildup: what ADRM said.
Click to expand...
I'd concur with ADRM too since nothing he said contradicts my point. I've said as clearly as I possibly can (2-3 times) that architectural merit is vital.

I think someone, in typical toronto fashion, quibbled that perhaps The One isn't among the very, very best SNF has ever built. I'd respond beggars can't be choosers, The One is among the best Toronto will see.
 
Last edited:
I get it. It's probably that we differ in terms of magnitude. Happy to leave it at that. Life's too short as it is.

Bring on the tower, I say.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top