I think the balconies aren't full width to reduce the apparent bulk of that part of the towers. If that were full width it might overpower the width of the patterned tower and look like a big shoulder. The balcony length matches the width of the patterned tower in scale.
Seems like an odd comment.
Probably no more or less than any other outfits' buildings. I'm pretty sure it's entirely unintentional if it does happen though...
It's an idle comment, completely without merit, rather on the wrong side of borderline trolling.
Unintentional? Understatement of the year so far: no developer wants any piece of their building to fall off, so in fact the pieces are designed specifically not to. No one wants anyone injured or killed pieces of their falling building, and no one wants their reputation to take a hit for that either, no one wants the liability from lawsuits that would follow. The industry took the failing glass issues of several years ago seriously, with millions spent to correct the situation. Broken glass incidents are very rare now. We're not even talking glass in this particular instance, we're talking about cladding panels that have not had a history of detaching from buildings.
Yes, I apologize if my statement was not as strong as it should of been. But I was dealing with a poster who appeared in credulity to be believing otherwise...so perhaps I was being overly diplomatic in my reply to that. Sorry. >.<
That's @mburrrrr post from here: https://urbantoronto.ca/forum/threa...architectsalliance.18997/page-72#post-1642389
He has been credited, that's not the issue. It's whether or not @mburrrrr was compensated
www.instagram.com
I think they still need to do something (more copper?) between the two horizontal bands.