Toronto 191 Bay | 301.74m | 64s | QuadReal | Hariri Pontarini

ADRM said:
I'm finding it difficult to get excited about this to even the slightest degree. The design (at least in its current iteration) is, to me, lazy, uninspired, and unrefined, to say nothing of the fact that I had previously assumed HPA would be above plopping a superfluous and non-contextual spire atop one of its buildings. And at grade, the development's only redeeming quality is at best a cheap facsimile of the Hudson Yards shed.

I get that some folks get excited about height for height's sake, but other than the continued densification of the city (which I almost always take as a positive) and the addition of yet more office space, what exactly is worth celebrating here?
Click to expand...

Very much share the opinion about the atrium at grade- rather incongruous and seems an afterthought. Indeed it looks like a glass tent and could probably be integrated better. I do like the idea of opening that southern stretch to the street- it's pretty lifeless as it is. In terms of the tower portion something more faithful to the original design concept might be better, perhaps two shorter towers that don't overwhelm CCW which would remain as the centrepiece. I wouldn't be opposed to moving the atrium to the central plaza area either, it was reworked in the 90's and is going to be essentially overwhelmed anyway, so perhaps that could work as a central unifying space for the complex.
 
Does Commerce Court own the three buildings on Yonge st. If so why dont they move this new skyscraper more to the east. To give more breathing space to the court yard and to other Commerce skysrapers. Incorporate those three structures on Yonge st. into new building.
 
There's also the issue of a smaller courtyard as a result of the new tower. Compare the current figuration where you get a full view of the old Commerce Court North tower if you are standing on the south side of the courtyard looking north: https://www.google.ca/maps/@43.6482299,-79.3787601,285m/data=!3m1!1e3?hl=en

With the new tower, you would only see half of it from the same position :
30327-104319.jpeg
 

Attachments

  • 30327-104319.jpeg
    30327-104319.jpeg
    416.6 KB · Views: 2,245
Seems like the atrium is trying to play off Calatrava's atrium to the South, instead of the actual tower it is serving...
 
It really is a nice plaza, a lot of different textures and the heavier architecture with punched windows works well to enclose the space.
commerce-ct-elephants-rear.jpg

Schuster Gindin from livingtorontojournal.com
 
look at all u ungrateful fu... . this project is way better that all the boxes going up in Toronto. looks classy and the height is good too NYC would appreciate something like this.
 
ushahid said:
look at all u ungrateful fu... . this project is way better that all the boxes going up in Toronto. looks classy and the height is good too NYC would appreciate something like this.
Click to expand...
I think you need to take off the "respect for everyone" tagline in your posts after calling everyone "ungreatful fu...".
 
ushahid said:
look at all u ungrateful fu... . this project is way better that all the boxes going up in Toronto. looks classy and the height is good too NYC would appreciate something like this.
Click to expand...

You should move to NYC then champ
 
The atrium also reminds me of the glass on stlits style of streetfront canopy proposed for CIBC Square (Bay Park Centre).

What might be interesting - and respectful of the original design - is to hollow out Commerce Court South, retaining the neatly fenestrated concrete walls (which are still architecturally relevant - compare to the grid of windows on 432 Park Ave. in NYC) and add a glass skylight roof to create a brightly lit public space within.

The grid of large square-ish windows would allow ample light into the interior space.
The interior would be like the Hearst Building in NYC, but with larger windows at Commerce Court South, so the clerestory panes at the top wouldn't be necessary (but an inset glass box for the roof may be interesting).

Note that the glassy atrium does not add any active uses to the Wellington streetfront
- it presents faceted but solid glass facade along most of the length of the pavilion.
What it offers is transparency or visual permeability.
That can be accomplished within the existing architecture of Commerce Court South by removing walls between columns at grade.
If the elevations do not work to use the existing structure, then demolish and rebuild a replica with the same concrete grid of windows.

AlvinofDiaspar said:
Street level details:

View attachment 130879

AoD
Click to expand...

Hearst Building podium atrium rom SSP:

NYguy;5014084 said:
http://www.fosterandpartners.com/Projects/1124/Default.aspx

1000%20Hearst%20Atrium%20large.jpg

http://www.worldarchitecturenews.com/index.php?fuseaction=wanappln.projectview&upload_id=559
Click to expand...

432_Park_Avenue__Ph95_tower.0.0.jpg

https://ny.curbed.com/2017/3/21/14998270/432-park-avenue-apartments-sold-nyc
 
Last edited:
I suspect you would see any rendering of something that appears new and flashy and exciting and declare it a good design and something that should be built. Fortunately, planners and architects approach these issues with a bit more nuance.
 
.dwg said:
I suspect you would see any rendering of something that appears new and flashy and exciting and declare it a good design and something that should be built. Fortunately, planners and architects approach these issues with a bit more nuance.
Click to expand...

Hey i drive by that stretch of Wellington everyday and all i know is it's a depressing dead-zone...bring in some changes please
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top