Union Centre | 267m | 52s | Westbank | Bjarke Ingels Group

3Dementia

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 24, 2007
Messages
2,004
Reaction score
360
42 - rarely disagree with ur wise counsel but, this one is too thick ;-)

"The shadows" is the usual song. But "the views" deserve fair attention. Shrink its girth.
 

drum118

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 24, 2007
Messages
14,388
Reaction score
6,834
Location
Mississauga, where cars rule city growth
How does the Vista 101s tower stack up to this one in Chicago?? I shot of different angle of the tower back on Aug 15 that are in my Chicago Album on my Flickr site. Not a fan of the colour glazing for both projects.

One can change the various levels going both way for Union.
 

salsa

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Sep 27, 2013
Messages
8,189
Reaction score
7,455
Location
North York
I was starting to think I was the only one that appreciated its girth. We need a few big heavy imposing buildings. They help anchor the places they exist in and give these areas a sense of permanence. It's imposing presence at the southern end of University Avenue is/was terrific. It unapologetically bookended this view corridor... and to great effect.
I appreciate it as well, however I will have to side with the panelists on this one.

Nearly all Panel members agreed that the width of the building was simply too much, and that its massing would create a formidable slab in the skyline. They stated that, "it's not animated enough of a wall to justify its width" and that they're "not sure if you've put together such a special building to warrant that amount of width".

With regards to architectural expression, many of the Panel members were unimpressed with its simplicity. "From an architectural perspective, I'm underwhelmed," said one Panelist, "It's really bulky, it's fairly straightforward from a glass perspective, and there's nothing special about it".
 

DopeyFish

New Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jul 25, 2017
Messages
78
Reaction score
69
It annoys me when people use skyline as a critique on a project. The skyline isn't a feature of development, it's a result of it.

Oh noes! People on boats or looking at the city from a certain perspective might not see another building!

While in this case there is the case of the building being a bit wide, it's merely the community impact that's important. You make buildings to service the demand of the various communities.
 

Northern Light

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
May 20, 2007
Messages
4,730
Reaction score
4,416
Location
Toronto/EY
I'm inclined to narrow the building as I did find it quite bulky.

That said...........what about extending the green/living wall completely up the middle column to break it up visually?

Yet another thought, loosely based on Alvin's idea above; what about finding somewhere around the 2/3 mark of height to create an in-set in the building equal to maybe 7 floors of height, where you could plant trees? Not a simple box cut-out but something with shape to it, complimenting the overall form.
 

ushahid

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Sep 26, 2013
Messages
1,976
Reaction score
950
Location
Vernon, BC
i think the diagrid structure will look nice on the outer side of the facade, like John Hancock in Chi or the Hearst Tower in NYC.

 

maestro

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
7,052
Reaction score
1,822
Wouldn't poking holes in it create even smaller continuous floor plates?

More effective would be to incline the sides narrowing the floor plate as it rises and spread out the crown's setbacks across 50 metres. Add height with an integrated spire. An anchor isn't likely to lease the whole building so having smaller floorplates as it rises shouldn't be as detrimental to the bottom line. This would obviously be a complete redesign.
 

AlvinofDiaspar

Moderator
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 22, 2007
Messages
26,521
Reaction score
13,745
Location
Toronto
Wouldn't poking holes in it create even smaller continuous floor plates?

More effective would be to incline the sides narrowing the floor plate as it rises and spread out the crown's setbacks across 50 metres. Add height with an integrated spire. An anchor isn't likely to lease the whole building so having smaller floorplates as it rises shouldn't be as detrimental to the bottom line. This would obviously be a complete redesign.
Some reduction, not necessarily as much as reducing the width of the building. Plus the void can be used as amenity spaces potentially.

AoD
 

AlexBozikovic

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Aug 14, 2011
Messages
104
Reaction score
265
This is not a simple tower. There’s actually quite a lot going on. The slab is broken up into 10 smaller units. Structural diagrid will be visible. The lit elevators on the north façade. But it’ll be elegant and timeless - unlike the kitsch of the Pelli/Oxford design nearby.
 

3Dementia

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 24, 2007
Messages
2,004
Reaction score
360
I just liked a Maestro post... maybe will call my doctor.

Diagrids underway: The Well (office), The One (boor), One Yonge (tallest) etc.

Maybe enough x's and some volumes/height that inspire (not speaking as a potential tenant). Just the usual skyline fanboy comment.

LOL forgot Bay Park Centre
 

Top