Toronto Pinnacle One Yonge | 351.85m | 106s | Pinnacle | Hariri Pontarini

stjames2queenwest said:
What would have made people happy?
Click to expand...
Again, I don't think this proposal is bad, but it is one of the most prominent sites in the city, right up there with Bloor/Yonge. Maybe this proposal is just not to my tastes, but it seems underwhelming when compared to HPA's other work. For example, I think The Well and 234 Simcoe are incredible, and I'd be more than happy to see a scaled-up project here of a similar calibre. I can't speak to what would have made other people happy.
 
stjames2queenwest said:
also... as gorgeous as vancouver is... almost every building looks the same. More so than here even. They deserve something different.

So do we. I just don't get the complaints... this is different from everything else we have been seeing. What would have made people happy?
Click to expand...

How will a glass tower that at the first glance doesn't offer much by the way of material sophistication stand out in an area that already saturated with structures of a similar nature? It is no different from your criticism of Vancouver. At least in the case of 234 Simcoe there is some evidence of using exterior cladding that offer differentiation - in fact, a tower with similar treatments would have been far superior.

AoD
 
Vancouver is killing it with their latest proposals which are outstanding. Toronto's problem is that too much of the towers are done by local architects who are mediocre at best. There needs to be more architects brought in from outside the city to do projects who can bring more refreshing ideas.
 
Adjei said:
Vancouver is killing it with their latest proposals which are outstanding. Toronto's problem is that too much of the towers are done by local architects who are mediocre at best. There needs to be more architects brought in from outside the city to do projects who can bring more refreshing ideas.
Click to expand...

I don't find Vancouver to be all that superior in this aspect - the materiality is especially wanting (besides, we are getting a BIG anyways, plus Foster, Gehry, etc). New York City offers far superior model to follow of late.

AoD
 
What model is that? The $7000 per square foot model?

42
 
AlvinofDiaspar said:
I don't find Vancouver to be all that superior in this aspect - the materiality is especially wanting
Click to expand...
I have high hopes for the Kengo Kuma tower -- he seems to be all about the materials.

And I don't think Toronto's local architects are mediocre at all. HPA is capable of amazing things, as their other projects show. Teeple is consistently sublime. KPMB and aA aren't flashy, but they do solid work. The smaller firms, too, are excellent in their own ways: Shim Sutcliffe, Superkul, and Partisans have all been doing some really interesting things. I don't think the problem is the local firms -- it's that developers, by and large, aren't willing to pay for good architecture. That's not something you can fix just by bringing in international architects.
 
interchange42 said:
What model is that? The $7000 per square foot model?

42
Click to expand...

Of course there is a huge price difference - but I am referring to "aspirations" - if even Monarch can pull off Picasso, what excuse does the rest of the developers have in not doing better, especially given what they are asking for this site?

AoD
 
smably said:
I don't think the problem is the local firms -- it's that developers, by and large, aren't willing to pay for good architecture.
Click to expand...

Quite frankly, I think it's the local firms that are pulling off the better designs on tighter budgets. The local firms are getting plenty of work because of the massive Toronto market and can use the opportunity to improve their image that can be translated into out-of-town/international business.

The highly competitive local market is a double-edged sword....it keeps the prices low (and cost-cutting high), but it also encourages developers and architects to up their game to outdo the other guy. The real problem is the buyers...they need to get a bit more savy. The developers build dreck because they know you will buy it anyway.
 
Just chimin' in here after a long absence. Not much time to write stuff, lately.

- The design / space utilization at ground level here is quite encouraging. Good city building.

- The main tower, well, let's see. I am lamenting the loss of the cylindrical tower. What the heck happened? Perhaps it was too good to be true.
 
The plan for a tower where the cylindrical one was to be located was abandoned. It was responding to the Lake Shore curve. Now that the towers are in different locations, they are meant to respond to their new siting.

42
 
I think the plans will keep changing in order for a better likelihood of the project getting approved by city council. The new rendering looks fantastic. The rendering gives the impression that the tallest of the towers is slated to be even taller. It might even duke it out with The One to be the new tallest building in Toronto.
 
It's not on track for a City Council approval, but an OMB one. The City, however, will want to go to the OMB with an agreement in place for the OMB to ratify, and the parties involved are negotiating toward that end. If they fail to reach an agreement, however, a full OMB hearing would occur.

42
 
This view is certainly going to change significantly if this is built.

IMG_6546.JPG
 

Attachments

  • IMG_6546.JPG
    IMG_6546.JPG
    410.3 KB · Views: 4,940
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top