Toronto Velocity at the Square | 122.52m | 40s | HNR | P + S / IBI

Oh yes. One of the sixteen City of Toronto listed heritage building by Prii from the Age of Concrete that defined Toronto after WW2.
 
Density where it belongs- on top of infrastructure and services. I like it.

Those of you critiquing this project, can you dumb it down for us non-designer types? What about it offends you so? Although I realize this is just a rendering, it's sleek form appeals to me.
 
So far all we've got out of them is a common, irrational fear of unadorned space.

Eeek! A blank wall! Slap billboards ... windows ... inscriptions ... balconies ... anything on it ... quick!
 
Where did the W Hotel rumour come from? A W Hotel right next door to the Pantages hotel? ...Really?
 
Its my rumour. Its just fun starting a rumour and watching it take off (and its a bit of a running joke on this board).
 
Urban Shocker said:
So far all we've got out of them is a common, irrational fear of unadorned space.

Eeek! A blank wall! Slap billboards ... windows ... inscriptions ... balconies ... anything on it ... quick!
Click to expand...

I don't mind the building - its not amazing, but its not hideous. However, what criticism I can give is not centered around an "irrational" fear of open or unadorned space. I do not believe this building's faults can be remedied with a simple billboard or balcony as others have suggested since the problems with this building don't even lie in its use of unadorned space.

To me, this example just furthers the underwhelming response of architectural firms (not singling out Diamond) to the challenges of space in Toronto. Shocker clearly aligns himself with the modernist camp as evidenced in his powerful defense of Clews' Google Sketchup designs. He also makes a strong case for this (Diamond's) building, correctly identifying its contextual strengths and justifying its use of open space.

He does not however, address the building's deeper flaws. These lie in the structure's unambitious design, its failure to create a taller focal point for the square and its almost assured use of shoddy, pre-cast panels for Shocker's valiantly-defended 'open space.'

The key to understanding and appreciating modernism is in the details. As we all know, modernist buildings eschew applied detail since their mystique lies in one's own interpretation of them. However, what we have largely seen in Toronto are buildings which boisterously associate themselves with proud and noble architectural traditions without actually following those creeds. Instead of buildings which force the observer consider their finer points, we have structures whose construction-quality negates any architectural merit. Ill fitting panels, thin glass, boxy, easy-to-build designs and the dreaded 'cheapening' are all valid if exhausted points on this forum. We all know the problems, we know the solutions yet we still continue to allow buildings like this current Diamond design to be erected.

While I refuse to make the lousy, ill-informed comparisons to New York, Chicago or Dubai (never understood the connection there), we Torontonians still face a serious problem here. This Diamond proposal would be the best addition to Teesdale since those buildings' construction; Dundas square however, simply deserves better.
 
As I stated on the first page of this thread, there was an RFP issued about 3 or 4 years ago by the IBI Group for an unamed developer looking for an architect for this project. It is possible that what we are seeing are the responses from two of the shortlisted firms. Who knows how many other renderings are skulking about out there. It would seem that some forum members can not see a conclusion without jumping to it - myself included.

Can anyone shed some light on who the developer might be?
 
Bazis, surely, would demand something visually loud and vulgar if they were developing this site.

P.End makes some observations but doesn't tell us how much taller - and why? - this building needs to be in order to satisfy his demand for height. It looks like it's about 45 storeys at the moment. And what's his basis for decreeing the present height to be a design flaw? I doubt that it will be any more of a focal point for the square than any number of surrounding buildings, though extra height would make it so. And what are the unstated ambitions that he sets for the design? None of the construction faults he sees in structures actually built around town can be ascribed to this tower, since it hasn't been built yet. There are preconceptions and unexplained assumptions in his arguments.
 
Excellent post, ProjectEnd.

Actually, I rather like this building. It reminds me of the Coroner's Building for some reason - I think it's the tall unapologetic verticality, and the elegance of the proportions. Clad in limestone, I think it would be beautiful.

I don't think this is the place for it, though. In presenting a largely inanimate (opaque) facade to the square, it looks as though it were trying to shelter the inhabitants from all the noise and light they'll ostensibly be enduring. One of the big attractions of being on the square would be being able to look right down and see all the action going on. Not to mention the urbane jolt one would get from being down in the square during an event, looking up, and seeing people looking down. That kind of transparency is not just architectural, it also crosses into being social. I think any building built around the square should try to embrace and celebrate this kind of social and urban energy.

I could see this as an ideal project for infill in the Financial District, where there's no human spectacle outside the window to see, and the building would be bound to be relatively hemmed in on each side anyway. It's restrained, pragmatic, maybe even lovely. But it's not the joyous or eventful architecture I think the square would benefit from.
 
The anti-social aspect of the building is a good point.

Walls of precast (it ain't going to be limestone folks) facing such a large public space is simply insulting and an ignorance of its context (in addition to the lack of interaction and animation).
 
The developer would have to be crazy to build the condo in that rendering. The orientation is all wrong. They could charge a fortune for suites with a view of Square, and a lot of the best Square views are completely wasted. All it has is one thin vertical strip of suites with balconies facing north.
 
^ Except maybe they know that the HNR building can -- in the future -- apply to add height to their tower which will completely cover this building. Also, there's a municipal rule about having windows face other property lines.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top