If we want to have components of the city blend in with the sky, then we should just go with the sky: it's far cheaper.
If we want to create a city out of buildings however, why not stand out from the sky a bit?
42
|
|
|
If we want to have components of the city blend in with the sky, then we should just go with the sky: it's far cheaper.
If we want to create a city out of buildings however, why not stand out from the sky a bit?
42
EnviroTO
Senior Member
Ummm... Because the sky doesn't house offices and residences without the expense of the building?
Exactly, so if you're going to the expense of building something into the sky, why not show it as separate from the sky? I'm not suggesting Pudong or Dubai here, I'm just suggesting the if you're going to have a skyline, you ought to be able to see it. I suppose the odd exception for invisibility can be made, but a whole skyline of BACs wouldn't be a skyline at all.
42
42
Urban Shocker
Doyenne
If you hate Bay Adelaide Centre West then your seriously out of luck because they're about to build 2 more of them... he he
Peace
And therein lies the charm, and power, of multiples - first the big butch TD Centre cluster, and now the ghostly, wan presence of this little encampment.
- Urban Shocker
The Average 56 Year Old
EnviroTO
Senior Member
The important part of a building is the bottom three or four floors which are visible from the street. If the building above that is reflective and blends in with the sky it allows more light to the street and prevents cavernous dark streets. There is far too much emphasis on skyline development in my opinion. The view from a distance doesn't matter in comparison to actually being there. Eventually as high-rises spead out across the city we will have a skyline like Sao Paulo with no contour at all. What will matter is how a building looks from the street because nobody will see the top because of the building sitting in front of it.
yyzhyd
Active Member
Just walked by just a few minutes ago... sorry no pics.
But all the trees are in approx. 16-20 and they're decently sized, with fairly thick trunks.
Some decorative tall grasses are being put in around the trees and the soil patch in the middle was getting prepped too... a la the TD Courtyard
drum118
Superstar
alklay
Senior Member
The BAC is, well, blah. Strangely, Scotiabank Plaza comes across as an interesting and handsome building in those photos (perhaps that is not strange, but...).
drum118
Superstar
Both 1 King and Scotiabank are a few of the new buildings that impress me at the top of the list more than others.
Now if the base of the BA was like the old section, it most likely move up the ladder from where it is today.
I'm not a square block person.
We need other colors than green and blue let alone the bla white precast on building these days.
Last edited:
steveve
Senior Member
why is everyone attacking BAC???
It did a fine job balancing out the skyline from the East and West!
Although the design is mediocre it still improved the skyline quite a bit and replaced that old stump that was there for decades....
Man.... Scotia Plaza and 1 King are like siblings... except 1 king is the little one
It did a fine job balancing out the skyline from the East and West!
Although the design is mediocre it still improved the skyline quite a bit and replaced that old stump that was there for decades....
Man.... Scotia Plaza and 1 King are like siblings... except 1 king is the little one
lordmandeep
Banned
Does anyone know if the walkway is completed or not???
EnviroTO
Senior Member
They are still working on the PATH. In the Bay they have surrounded the stairs to the parking tunnel with a luggage display. Looks like they were working on the flooring.
4grand
Active Member
why is everyone attacking BAC???
It did a fine job balancing out the skyline from the East and West!
Although the design is mediocre it still improved the skyline quite a bit and replaced that old stump that was there for decades....
Man.... Scotia Plaza and 1 King are like siblings... except 1 king is the little one
With all due respect, you're essentially saying that any tall structure on this site doesn't deserve criticism since it's tall and balances out the skyline, and replaced the stump. You're right, it did do all those things, but it failed epically in all other aspects. It's tall, yes, well kind of, it has added to the skyline, yes... kind of, and it replaced the stump, yes, well sort of.
It's bland, and I still am amazed that someone was paid for designing this thing. Honestly, it looks like it was conceived in less than 10 minutes. Seriously, someone was PAID to 'design' this thing? Really? Reeeeeaallly?
Sir Novelty Fashion
Senior Member
I think, 4grand, if we put you in a room, gave you a design team and asked you to build a skyscraper, you'd discover pretty quickly why we pay people to do this kind of thing. I know you harbour suspicions that B/A's architect sat down with a ruler, drew a bunch of perpendicular lines, and then yelled "THIS IS MAGNIFICENT!", but that's not really a fair representation of the design process.
(For one thing, architects are usually convinced of the magnificence of their plans before they've drawn anything.)
At any rate, not everything would have brought balance. A 600-foot doorknob wouldn't have brought balance; nor, for that matter, would have the late, unlamented Sapphire Tower.
I think we all agree that B/A isn't going to give anyone a heart attack. But its proportions, shape, and finishes are harmonious and stately. It's a quiet, solid, self-assured building, almost sky-coloured. It's the kind of building you can build a skyline around. Not every one is.
(For one thing, architects are usually convinced of the magnificence of their plans before they've drawn anything.)
At any rate, not everything would have brought balance. A 600-foot doorknob wouldn't have brought balance; nor, for that matter, would have the late, unlamented Sapphire Tower.
I think we all agree that B/A isn't going to give anyone a heart attack. But its proportions, shape, and finishes are harmonious and stately. It's a quiet, solid, self-assured building, almost sky-coloured. It's the kind of building you can build a skyline around. Not every one is.
Last edited:
SP!RE
°°°°°°
Wow. Debate about the BA Centre design is still marching on, despite the fact that the building is so inoffensive and was designed to be such that it would never even generate a bit of debate or even attention. How ironic .
I think it's fine. It's almost elegant (not quite though, apart from the lobby area) and very good at blending in and being "Toronto financial district" which I think Bay Street needs in this location, that style.
Could it have been better? Hell yes. The fins are awkwardly small (offensive) and the massive lighting feature would have been an interesting touch. But generally this building is inoffensive in every single way, so I am not going to complain.
PS. As for proportions, I've had several friends ask me, "Wait, so that's Toronto's tallest." Stop judging towers from miles away; that's not generally how architecture or citybuilding works.
.I think it's fine. It's almost elegant (not quite though, apart from the lobby area) and very good at blending in and being "Toronto financial district" which I think Bay Street needs in this location, that style.
Could it have been better? Hell yes. The fins are awkwardly small (offensive) and the massive lighting feature would have been an interesting touch. But generally this building is inoffensive in every single way, so I am not going to complain.
PS. As for proportions, I've had several friends ask me, "Wait, so that's Toronto's tallest." Stop judging towers from miles away; that's not generally how architecture or citybuilding works.
Last edited: